ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

EDUCATION

The Secretary of State was asked—

Education Maintenance Allowance

Stephen Mosley: What estimate he has made of savings to the public purse arising from the abolition of the education maintenance allowance.

Matthew Hancock: By replacing the education maintenance allowance with the 16-to-19 bursary fund, we are saving £380 million every year and targeting help more sharply at the young people who need it most.

Stephen Mosley: My local further education provider, West Cheshire college, is proving very effective at ensuring that the bursary fund helps those young people who most need it. What is my hon. Friend the Minister doing to ensure that the bursary fund is targeted at those most in need?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend’s local FE college is not only very good; it is also the FE college I went to. I am glad to say that the 16-to-19 bursary fund allows colleges to target support at those who need it most. The most vulnerable receive a bursary of up to £1,200, which is far more than they could have received from EMA.

Bill Esterson: The Merseyside Colleges Association told Merseyside MPs just this week that the bursary fund is nowhere near enough to deal with the need that it finds for food, travel, or books. Will the Minister seriously reconsider? It is not just the very poorest students who are missing out, but those just above them; colleges do not have the money to cover them.

Matthew Hancock: It was found that the education maintenance allowance was paid to 10 times more people than needed it to access further education. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions food, because the Government are introducing free school meals for those who need them in FE colleges—something the Opposition never did.

David Hanson: Will the Minister accept that not everybody who attends college in Chester does not get EMA? Those of my constituents who are from Wales get it, because the Labour Government in Wales provide it to all pupils. Will he accept that that EMA provision means that people stay on at school for longer, and improves their ability to learn at school?

Matthew Hancock: No, because the 16-to-19 bursary fund is better targeted. As is typical of Opposition proposals, the shadow Secretary of State’s proposal to bring back EMA would have been paid for with a measure that would have raised just over £100 million, leaving yet another black hole. That is typical of the Labour party.

Young Carers

Stuart Andrew: What steps he is taking to improve support for young carers.

Edward Timpson: On 8 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education issued a written ministerial statement announcing an amendment to the Children and Families Bill. For the first time, all young carers will have the right to an assessment of their needs for support as part of the consideration of the needs of the whole family. That amendment will help to achieve our aim of protecting young people from excessive or inappropriate caring roles.

Stuart Andrew: I thank the Minister for that answer. Many of the young carers in my constituency and their families will be delighted with that news, but how will he ensure that this landmark law is backed up with the support that is necessary for it to be implemented successfully?

Edward Timpson: It is important to recognise that we are not coming at this from a standing start. Since April 2011, we have been funding work done by the Carers Trust and the Children’s Society to establish and share the best practice in supporting young carers that we know is already out there. To date, they have worked with more than 100 local authorities, and we hope that we can help to build that progress with them.

Barbara Keeley: We have an excellent young carers project in Salford, but it can do its excellent work only if schools and teachers help to identify carers in the first place, so that they can get that help and support. Does the Minister agree that it is essential for schools, colleges and universities to have in place policies that can identify pupils and students who are young carers, and make sure that they are referred to that excellent source of advice and help?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She has been a strong advocate for young carers, not just in her constituency, but more widely. The Children’s Society has been awarded £1.5 million by the Big Lottery Fund to help ensure that teachers are better at identifying young carers in school, and that young carers are identified and get the support that they require. That is welcome news.

Child Protection

Jenny Chapman: What recent assessment he has made of progress on inter-agency working for child protection; and if he will make a statement.

Bridget Phillipson: What recent assessment he has made of progress on inter-agency working for child protection; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Timpson: Professor Eileen Munro looked at inter-agency working in her widely welcomed review of child protection. We endorsed her conclusion that a strong culture of inter-agency working and information sharing is needed in child protection. That is why we have strengthened the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children” 2013, setting out the core responsibilities and legal requirements for all who come into contact with children in order to keep them safe.

Jenny Chapman: The Minister’s response goes some way to reassuring me but, like many colleagues, I find serious case reviews depressingly similar. We hear about the same failings time and again. What is the Secretary of State planning to do to make sure that reviews do not just examine what went wrong, but help us understand why?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Lady highlights an extremely serious issue which we have taken on board in relation to serious case reviews. It is important that we understand not only what happened but, as she rightly said, why that happened. We have seen in recent serious case reviews the need to get that analysis right so that in the future we see fewer of the problems of the past resurfacing. The Secretary of State will be making a speech later this week on precisely this issue and setting out his vision of what more we need to do to keep our children safe, but it is right that we keep that focus directly where it needs to be—on children—and that it remains our highest priority.

Bridget Phillipson: All too often serious case reviews feature a history of domestic violence in the family. What is the Minister doing across government to make sure that a range of professionals are properly trained in this area and are then able to identify and respond to domestic violence?

Edward Timpson: Before I came to this House and was practising in the family courts, it was a depressing feature of most cases that domestic violence was taking place in the presence of children and sometimes with children being the recipients of that violence. That is why we must be extremely vigilant in whatever work we do with children to make sure we root it out. The Home Office is doing work to try to address training and the understanding of domestic violence, and I know that that is one of the key areas on which the sexual violence against children and vulnerable people national group is working. I will encourage it to do so in collaboration with my Department.

David Davies: Given the priority that the Government are quite rightly putting on child protection, can the Minister tell me what steps have been taken since I wrote in April to establish the name of the school attended by Adil Rashid, who defended himself against a serious sexual offence on the grounds that his school—his state-funded school—had taught him that women were worthless?

Edward Timpson: I have been able to identify the school and the steps being taken. I know that my hon. Friend has been in correspondence and the Secretary of State is aware of the issue. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and to write to him with those details so that we ensure that all that can be done is being done.

Tessa Munt: In conjunction with the need for inter-agency working, will teachers be given the duty of reporting child abuse when they come across it, and will there be a duty to report that to the local authority without any qualification whatever?

Edward Timpson: The new statutory guidance is crystal clear about the responsibilities of all those who work with children, including in schools, and if they have a concern about a child’s welfare, safety or care they should report that to the appropriate authority. We do not believe that making failure to report a criminal offence will improve the protection of children. There is international evidence that suggests that that can make children less safe, but of course we always keep these things under review.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister agree that the Baby Peter case and the tragic event of the death of that little boy highlighted the need for inter-agency co-operation? Will he also associate himself with my view that we in this House should all be ashamed of the inappropriate hunting down and scapegoating of Sharon Shoesmith?

Edward Timpson: In the light of the recent tragic case of Daniel Pelka, we look carefully at what we could learn from the serious case review. It seemed clear to us that the most important focus of our work had to be on understanding what went wrong and why, as opposed to trying to single out individuals at that stage of the investigation. We want everyone to prioritise the protection of children, whatever role they have, whether it is at the level of director of children’s services or working on the front line. We need to send out the message, “We are there to support you in your work, but where you need to be challenged, where there are basic practice failures, we will do so and make sure we put it right.”

Primary School Places

Barry Gardiner: What plans he has to ensure an adequate supply of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

Yvonne Fovargue: What plans he has to ensure an adequate supply of primary school places; and if he will make a statement.

David Laws: We will spend £5 billion by 2015 on creating new school places across the country—more than double the amount spent
	by the previous Government in the same time frame. We have worked closely with councils on reforms to school place funding so that it is now more accurate than ever before.

Barry Gardiner: Two years ago, Brent had a surplus of primary school places: this year, 614 children are without one. Has the removal of local authorities’ powers to plan and review school places impacted to more damaging effect in any other borough in the country than in Brent, where we now have a 12.5% shortage?

David Laws: No, the hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. What has done damage to place planning in large parts of the country is the removal by the last Labour Government of 200,000 primary school places, even after the Office for National Statistics reported the biggest increase in the birth rate since the second world war. I have some figures for the hon. Gentleman about his borough. Basic need funding for Brent in the last four years under Labour was £33.8 million, which I acknowledge is a lot of money. Under this coalition Government that has now risen to £114 million, an increase of 240%.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Conservative manifesto promised small schools with smaller class sizes. Will the Minister confirm whether, in the last year, the number of infant classes with more than 30 pupils has more than doubled?

David Laws: Of course the number has gone up, precisely for the reason that I gave: her Government took out 200,000 places in primary education, even over a period when for seven years in a row the birth rate was rising. I also have good news for the hon. Lady. During the last four years of her Government, her area had a £3.1 million investment in basic need. Over a comparable period, that figure now is £11.7 million, an increase of 280%. She should be thanking us for that.

Rob Wilson: I thank the Minister for the recent funding that allowed a significant expansion of primary school places in my constituency. Will he confirm that the Government are spending twice as much on primary school places as the last Government?

David Laws: I will confirm precisely that. Not only have we allocated £5 billion over this Parliament, more than double the amount that the Labour party allocated over the same period, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has succeeded in securing from the Treasury £7.1 billion of capital funding for basic need alone from 2015 to 2021.

Greg Mulholland: In 2001-02, Labour-run Leeds city council forced through a raft of unpopular primary school closures against the wishes of the community. Now, Labour-run Leeds city council is saying that it does not have enough places and that it needs to spend lots of taxpayers’ money building more schools. How can we prevent such appalling planning in the future?

David Laws: Now we have evidence from the ground, from Leeds, about the exact consequences of the last Labour Government and the mistake that they made by not investing properly in capital. However, I can assure
	my hon. Friend that the figures for Leeds are these: under the last Labour Government, £15 million over four years for basic need; under this coalition Government, £99.2 million, an increase of 560%.

Fabian Hamilton: The pressure on primary school places in north-east Leeds is so great that many parents do not even get their fifth choice. What advice would the Minister offer those parents who are forced to send their non-Jewish child to a Jewish primary school and their non-Christian child to a Christian primary school?

David Laws: I would advise them to be very angry indeed about the last Government, who failed to invest in basic need. I would invite them to welcome the 560% increase in basic need funding under this Government and to draw the political conclusions from that.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shortage is the result of two factors: first, the loss of those 200,000 places; and, secondly, the unprecedented population surge resulting from the open borders during the second half of the previous Government’s time in office?

David Laws: I agree that there has been a significant increase in population in some areas, and the number of places decreased by 220,000 under the previous Labour Government. This coalition Government are now making proper provision right across the country.

Andy Sawford: One of the issues in Corby, which has seen a 25% increase in the number of children in reception and has the highest birth rate in the country, is that we now have more provision through a free school at secondary level, where we already have a surplus of places, but insufficient primary school provision. I ask the Minister—in not too political a way, I hope—to look at that.

David Laws: I am very happy to look at any issues the hon. Gentleman wants to raise about his constituency, but I point out that the funding that the Government secures for free schools is in addition to the funding for basic need.

Peter Bone: This morning I met the leaders of Tresham college, who have been able to announce a multi-million pound investment in my constituency that will include an education village, part of which will be a new primary school. Labour talked about it, but it never happened. Under this Conservative-led Government it is happening. Is not that a good thing?

David Laws: It certainly is a good thing that under this coalition Government we are seeing a massive increase in capital expenditure on basic need: £400 million was the pitiful amount spent in the last year of the Labour Government. Between 2013 and 2015 we are spending £2.4 billion.

Free School Meals

Duncan Hames: What plans he has to ensure that all primary schools are able to offer free school meals to all infants.

David Laws: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that every child in reception—year 1 and year 2—in state-funded schools will be entitled to a free school lunch from September 2014. The Government will say more about the detail of the policy over the next few weeks.

Duncan Hames: That is a very welcome announcement. On Friday I visited St Mary’s school in Broughton Gifford in my constituency, which does not have kitchen facilities and is no longer in a position to offer its pupils hot lunches. Will the Minister ensure that sufficient capital funding is available to enable small primary schools that do not have kitchen facilities to provide hot lunches to all their infants?

David Laws: We are certainly ensuring proper capital provision. We have a proud record on not only basic need, but the amounts we are allocating for maintenance, free schools and other parts of the capital programme.

Keith Vaz: Does the Minister agree that the meals that are provided must be healthy? Some 31% of boys and 29% of girls between the ages of two and 15 are obese, and obesity leads to diabetes. Can we ensure that the meals provided actually help the nutrition for those children?

David Laws: I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The challenge is to ensure not only that we expand entitlement right across the country by September 2014, but that the meals are healthy and are delivered effectively in every single school. We shall ensure that we do that exactly as set out in the school food plan published a few months ago.

Massive Open Online Courses

Andrew Selous: What assessment he has made of the potential role of massive open online courses in schools.

Elizabeth Truss: MOOCs present a huge opportunity for this country and are part of a technological revolution that we are seeing around the world. A student in Newcastle can now watch a lecture online from a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for free. I think that helps democratise education and open up knowledge.

Andrew Selous: Does the Minister agree that MOOCs are a way of ensuring that all children, from whatever background, can get an outstanding education from world-class communicators, thus freeing up teachers to help children with their online exercises?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Due to our new national curriculum and qualifications, which are much more flexible, we are seeing a rise in the number of MOOCs in this country. Cambridge university is developing a new MOOC for physics and there are online courses, such as our new core maths course for 16 to 18-year-olds, which is enabling students to study international baccalaureate maths online in their schools.

Special Educational Needs

Michael McCann: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of provision of education for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Timpson: Many schools provide excellent teaching for pupils with SEN, but we know from reports by Ofsted and Brian Lamb that too often pupils are classified as having SEN but do not make progress. That is why our SEN reforms, including education, health and care plans, focus on the involvement of families and the agreement of concrete outcomes, so that parents are clear that their children are genuinely making progress.

Michael McCann: I am grateful for the Minister’s response. The 17 October debate in this Chamber on funding support for deaf children and young people highlighted areas of excellence in deaf education across the country, but sadly that is not the case everywhere. What steps will the Minister be taking to support, promote and ensure that we can distribute best practice for deaf children across the whole country?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Gentleman has a huge personal interest in this issue, and he made an excellent contribution to that debate. He is right that we need to ensure that, where there is excellence, it can be spread as widely and deeply as possible. That is why we are providing £1.1 million of funding to the National Sensory Impairment Partnership, to help to benchmark local authority service and provide guidance on good practice to support sensory support services, in an effort to get more children to benefit from the excellence that we know exists.

Christopher Pincher: I am sure that my hon. Friend will pay tribute to Dig-iT, the dyslexia group in Tamworth, which does great voluntary work for dyslexia sufferers in the town. Does he agree that we need a level playing field in the teaching of children with dyslexia and dyspraxia, so that they get the best possible chance of success?

Edward Timpson: I have no doubt that Dig-iT in Tamworth is doing some incredible work to support children with dyslexia and dyspraxia, and we recognise that we need to do more to ensure a level playing field for those families who require extra support. That is why, over two years, we are providing £5.5 million to a number of different voluntary organisations, including the Dyslexia-SpLD Trust, so that they can give free advice and training on key aspects of SEN, to make that level playing field a reality.

Stephen McCabe: I congratulate the Government on their education, health and care plans, which could make a real difference. The Minister will know that parents who are used to struggling
	for support are worried that the plans may be too difficult to access. Given the intention to suspend them in custodial settings and to abolish School Action and School Action Plus, there is a fear that the brave new world could be limited to too few. Will the Minister take those concerns on board? In fact, in this instance, why do not we try to work together and do what is right for those with special needs?

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his co-operative spirit on this issue. It is important that Parliament and Government give a single, clear message on ensuring that all children with SEN get the support that they need and deserve. I am aware of a number of concerns that have been raised, by parents and others working with children with SEN, during the passage of the Children and Families Bill. The important thing to remember is that we are not reducing or diluting any of the existing protections or rights. In fact, we are expanding them in many cases, particularly for those young people over the age of 16. We will continue to work on some of the remaining issues as the Bill continues its passage through the other place.

Child Care

Jonathan Reynolds: What steps he is taking to ensure there is sufficient supply of child care places for the 40% most disadvantaged two-year-olds.

Elizabeth Truss: After only one month of the programme being available, local authorities have reported to us that 92,000 two-year-olds have received an early education place. That is well on the way to our ultimate goal. In fact, it is 70% of it, which is a tremendous achievement by the local authorities and child care providers that participated. We are doing more work to make sure that childminders, nurseries and school nurseries are able to offer places for next year’s expansion.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is it not the case that the latest figures produced by her own Department suggest that the take-up of the offer for two-year-olds has been lower than intended? This is a flagship policy of the Government, so will the Minister confirm whether she is satisfied with the information that she has just given us, or will she try to make the programme work even better?

Elizabeth Truss: I think that 92,000 places is a fantastic achievement for local authorities. There are disparities across the country, and we are working with local authorities that are behind. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that 400 two-year-olds have places in his local area of Tameside. We are doing more to ensure that childminders can offer places. All good and outstanding childminders will be able to offer places from this September.

Guy Opperman: Many parents want their young children to have home-based child care. What policies does my hon. Friend have to ensure that we can offer places to parents who want that kind of child care?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Unfortunately, the number of childminders reduced by half under the previous Government. We are determined to see the number increase. We are allowing all good and outstanding childminders to offer early education. We are also enabling the establishment of childminding agencies, which will be a one-stop shop for new childminders who want to join the profession and will enable parents to find the home-based care that they want for their children.

Lucy Powell: The truth is that under the hon. Lady’s Government, the number of child care places has fallen. As a result, the costs are going up. Families who are already struggling to make ends meet cannot afford to work. When will she get a grip of the child care provision for two-year-olds and older children and tackle the child care crisis that is facing families across the country?

Elizabeth Truss: First, I welcome the shadow Minister to her new position and congratulate her on her well deserved promotion. I am delighted to be working with her on this issue. As I have pointed out, we reported today that 92,000 two-year-olds are in early education places. That compares to 20,000 two-year-olds in 2010. This Government have made massive progress.

Simon Wright: To make a difference, the additional capacity must be delivered in high-quality settings. Will the Minister discuss with Ofsted the need to ensure that the inspection framework is sufficiently robust to ensure that those providers who want to expand their capacity are challenged to give those from poorer backgrounds the best start in life?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are ensuring that those places are delivered by good and outstanding nurseries and childminders. This year, the number of early years teachers entering the programme increased by 25%. Those teachers will have the same standards as primary and secondary school teachers. We are improving the quality of the work force, which will ultimately deliver better early education.

Special Educational Needs

Emma Lewell-Buck: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the training and support available for the teaching of children with special educational needs.

Edward Timpson: Teachers tell us that the quality of their training in SEN has improved significantly, with 69% of primary teachers and 74% of secondary teachers rating their training as “good” or “very good” in helping them to teach pupils with SEN. That compares to as few as 45% in 2008.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Just over 1,900 pupils in my constituency have special educational needs. Those children need teachers who understand their unique requirements as learners and adapt their lessons appropriately. Does the Minister accept that such pupils lose out in schools that have unqualified teachers who have never undertaken any special educational needs training?

Edward Timpson: No.

Information: Young People

Chris Evans: What assessment he has made of current provision of information, advice and guidance for young people.

Matthew Hancock: We have introduced a new duty on schools to secure independent and impartial careers advice. For the first time, we have a National Careers Service and Ofsted will judge a school’s leadership on how well they deliver.

Chris Evans: Careers Wales has referred 9,000 people to the Jobs Growth Wales programme and 75% of them are now in sustainable employment. Have the Government studied the Welsh experience?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, of course; we have looked all around the world. We are increasing the amount of mentoring to ensure that we have the best people, including employers, to inspire young people to go into careers that will enable them to reach their potential.

Graham Stuart: Research conducted last month as part of professions week found that, of the 1,200 14 to 19-year-olds surveyed, just 40% had received any form of careers advice or guidance in the past year. In the light of Ofsted’s damning report earlier this autumn, will the Minister assure the House that further steps will be taken to ensure that the transfer of the duty to schools leads to an improvement in careers advice and guidance?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, we are clear that we are going to strengthen careers advice. Ofsted’s statement that it will look into the quality of the advice that is given will ensure that schools deliver appropriate high-quality careers advice. That advice needs to be of a high quality, and it must be delivered by people who understand how to inspire and mentor young people to enter careers that will interest them.

Rushanara Ali: The Government’s programme for school-based careers guidance has been slated by the OECD, Ofsted and the Chair of the Education Committee. Careers England found that the Government’s changes have caused a drastic reduction in careers services for some 80% of schools. What is the Minister going to do about that?

Matthew Hancock: I am going to execute the plan that we set out last month. I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. The best way to solve careers advice is not to insist on a bureaucratic system of requirements, but to ensure that people in the workplace are closer to education and that schools communicate with employers, so that those who deliver careers advice understand the careers on which they are advising.

Damian Hinds: Does the Minister share my experience that it is quite unusual to hear someone of any age spontaneously talking about the excellent careers advice they received, and even rarer to meet someone who is in the job that they were once advised was for them? Is not the best advice often to keep one’s options open by choosing valuable, trusted subjects, hence the EBacc and TechBac?

Matthew Hancock: It is undoubtedly true that the two most important vocational subjects are English and maths and that the best insurance against unemployment as a young person is to study more English and maths. I will, however, take my hon. Friend slightly to task. Many people were mentored by those who inspired them and from whom they learned a lot. Ensuring that all children have such relationships with people in the sort of careers that they want to enter is an important part of strengthening social mobility.

Nicholas Dakin: Ofsted reports that three quarters of the schools that it visited were not carrying out the duty to give impartial careers advice. That confirms what everybody out there knows: careers advice, information and guidance are in a state on this Government’s watch. When will they do something about it and protect our young people for the future?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, indeed, we are acting, having inherited a complete failure in careers advice. The Connexions service that the Labour party keeps talking about was well known to be a failing institution, and when it was taken apart, it was agreed across the House that that was the right thing to do because it was not delivering. Instead, we have put in place the sort of guidance and inspiration that will help and support people all the way through and into their careers. Ofsted will hold schools to account, and that is the right way to proceed.

Head teachers

Dominic Raab: What steps he is taking to allow head teachers greater autonomy in their schools.

Michael Gove: The welcome growth in the number of academies has provided more freedom for more head teachers to raise standards for more students, especially the poorest.

Dominic Raab: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Although a formal teaching qualification may be a bonus, with Ofsted’s rigorous new inspection regime and performance-related pay, does he agree that it would be dogmatic in the extreme to force heads to fire 15,000 teachers, regardless of their impact in the classroom, just because they do not hold a piece of paper?

Michael Gove: That is a characteristically acute point from my hon. Friend. The most important thing we need to do is ensure that the quality of teaching in our schools is improving. Ofsted tells us that it is, and I am delighted to report that to the House. That is a result of our reforms.

Gerry Sutcliffe: What will the Secretary of State do about Kings Science Academy in Bradford and the disaster that is that school? There are fines for admission policies, and it looks like criminality as well.

Michael Gove: There are certainly questions to be answered by those responsible for Kings science academy, but I stress that all academies and free schools are more rigorously audited and held accountable than local
	authority schools. I also stress that for many years the quality of education in Bradford has been appalling, yet it is only when new providers come in to innovate that we hear from Opposition Members. They are prepared consistently to turn a blind eye to Labour local authorities that fail, yet whenever there is any challenge to that complacency, all they can do is talk cynically about those idealists who are trying to improve state education.

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State will be aware from the recent Defence Committee inquiry that the education statements contained in the armed forces covenant clash with the Education Act 2011 on admissions to school. With that in mind, should head teachers of Army-focused schools have more authority over whom they admit into their schools?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. One thing that he has done consistently in his time in the House is to ensure that schools in garrison towns such as the one that he represents take appropriate account of the need of our armed forces and their children, particularly at times of movement and redeployment. I would be happy to talk to him more closely about how we can ensure not only that admissions arrangements but additional support are there for those families. We have introduced the service premium for the children of those in the armed forces. I hope that the introduction of that additional cash will help his constituents and those of every other hon. Member.

Gisela Stuart: Does the Secretary of State share my expectation that head teachers, when they exercise greater autonomy, take account of the needs of the area in which they teach and operate, which we are trying to achieve in Birmingham? Will he encourage them to do so?

Michael Gove: I absolutely would encourage them to do that. Let me pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work in bringing teachers together in Birmingham to introduce the Birmingham baccalaureate, which is a perfect preparation both for the world of work and for further and higher education. One problem in Birmingham for many years has been a culture of underperformance in far too many schools, and that has been insufficiently challenged by the local authority. It should not have to fall to her to do the job that the council should have been doing, but if I would trust anyone to do that job instead of the council, it would be her.

Free Schools

John Cryer: What his policy is on oversight of free schools.

Michael Gove: Free schools and academies are held more rigorously to account than any other schools.

John Cryer: Well, that is a bit of a shock, because it is widely accepted that the democratic scrutiny and oversight of state schools is pretty intense but hardly exists at all for free schools. Does the Secretary of State not worry that that has led to the scandals of the past few months,
	which could well be the tip of the iceberg? We could see more scandals over the next few years because of that lack of democratic scrutiny.

Michael Gove: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was surprised by either the content or the brevity of my response, but let me spell things out in slightly greater detail. Academies and free schools have an accounting officer in the way that local authority schools do not; and academies and free schools have to file accounts every year in a way that local authority schools do not. The National Audit Office has pointed out that the scrutiny of schools by local authorities is not that which we should expect. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are problems in individual academies and free schools, but there are also problems in individual local authority schools. We know what has gone wrong in academies and free schools because this Government have put in place an improved system of scrutiny for them.

Philip Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that the problems at the school in Bradford highlighted earlier are nothing to do with it being a free school? Will he comment on the One in a Million free school, which recently opened in Bradford? It was over-subscribed and is doing a fantastic job of providing the education that is much needed in that part of Bradford.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The highest-performing school in Bradford is, I believe, an academy. New free schools that have arrived in Bradford have, until recently, been welcomed on by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Increased choice for parents and an increased range of schools has helped to drive up standards across the UK. It is striking that schools in England have consistently improved over the past few years in a way that schools in Wales have not. That is because we have not only parental choice, free schools and academies, but a rigorous inspectorate and league tables, which enable us to identify good practice and spread it more energetically.

Margaret Beckett: I am pleased to hear what the Secretary of State has said on the rigorous oversight for financial purposes of free schools. The Ofsted report on the Al-Madinah school in my constituency has been published, but when does he expect to publish the report of the external funding agency?

Michael Gove: The report is by the Education Funding Agency rather than the external funding agency, but I take the right hon. Lady’s point. We have published more about the Al-Madinah free school than has been published about other local authority schools in Derby. It is striking that she raises the weakness of the Al-Madinah free school when, as Ofsted has pointed out with respect to Derby, it is in one of the weakest areas of school improvement of any local authority. In consultation with the EFA, we will ensure that every piece of information necessary about the fate of that school is published at the appropriate time, in the appropriate way. However, it must be stressed that the action we have taken to deal
	with the Al-Madinah free school was taken faster than any action taken by Labour-led Derby council to deal with any of the underperforming schools in that great city.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case of Al-Madinah school in Derby shows that the Government will not tolerate failure in education establishments, whether they are free schools or local authority schools?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Schools, including Sinfin school and Grampian school, were allowed to fail in Derby. When they were taken over as academies under this Government, they all saw real improvement in performance. Derby was among the 20% of local authorities that were the weakest when it came to school improvement. The right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) said nothing about that then, but she turns a Nelsonian blind eye to failure by Labour local authorities. When this Government take steps to improve state education, she has nothing to say.

Mr Speaker: I do not know what the Secretary of State is having for breakfast, but it is obviously achieving the desired effect.

Kevin Brennan: The Secretary of State sat on the damning report on the Kings Science academy scandal for more than five months. When was he planning to tell us that the school had been fined an additional £4,000 for refusing to implement the direction of the independent review panel? Why is there so much secrecy around these schools? Is it because, as he said earlier, he seems to think that fraud is acceptable as long as those responsible are innovators?

Michael Gove: There is less secrecy around these schools than there is around local authority schools. We have published the internal audit report into what happened at the Kings Science academy. We informed the Home Office of our concerns about that school, and the reason the hon. Gentleman knows so much about the school is that this Government have been far more transparent about institutional failure than the Government of whom he was a member. [Interruption.] However much he may prate and cry from a sedentary position, he knows that this Government have been more transparent about failure and more determined to turn schools around and generate success than he ever was.

Teacher Supply and Recruitment

Julie Hilling: What plans he has for teacher supply and recruitment.

David Laws: We are improving initial teacher training in a number of ways. We are enhancing the Teach First programme and taking measures to increase the number of young people who can join teaching through the School Direct programme.

Julie Hilling: The primary duty of the Secretary of State is surely to provide enough good school places and enough good teachers. It seems that he is failing on
	both counts. Why have the Government not published the 2014-15 teacher training number allocation by providers, subject and phase, as normal? What is he trying to hide?

David Laws: We are not trying to hide anything. We have already published the headline figures for allocations to initial teacher training. The detailed allocations, including the breakdown by subject, will be published in the next few weeks, once they have been confirmed by universities and schools. I will be happy to ensure that the hon. Lady receives a full set of figures.

Topical Questions

David Crausby: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michael Gove: Next year, my Department will be joining the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn from, and commemorate, the sacrifice of those who fell in the first world war. We will be building on the work of the excellent Holocaust Educational Trust, which ensures that children have the chance to travel to Auschwitz, so that children in all state schools have an opportunity to visit the battlefields of the first world war.

David Crausby: The Secretary of State will know that there is no requirement on schools to have a defibrillator on the premises. Is it not time for such a requirement, to ensure that all children and staff are protected? It cannot be right to leave it to parent teacher association fundraising and charities, which have so much else to do. What plans does he have to put that right?

Michael Gove: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) has been campaigning on this issue and I will be meeting him shortly. There is much to be said for supporting schools to ensure that defibrillators are in place. I want to work with the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole to do that in the most effective way.

Graham Stuart: Last week, I was pleased to help launch “My Education”, a report produced by Teach First and Pearson, which surveyed 8,000 British teenagers on their education. The overwhelming majority said that more work experience and better careers advice would help them find the right future. Following that overwhelming response, can the Secretary of State assure us that the National Careers Service will be enabled to support the delivery of careers advice and guidance in schools to the betterment of our entire population?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to stress that we need to ensure more work experience opportunities for all young people, which is why we have changed how children are funded when they enter post-16 education to make it easier to offer the appropriate work experience. I also agree that we need to ensure that careers advice for young people is
	suitably inspiring and to see whether the National Careers Service or other institutions can help. In particular, it is important to work with businesses to ensure that young people have the opportunity to see and hear from the role models who will ensure they make the right choices in the future.

Tristram Hunt: Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, students who study only the English language GCSE will be excluded from studying the great works of English literature?

Michael Gove: No, they will not be excluded from studying anything.

Tristram Hunt: The Secretary of State is not aware of his own GCSE reforms. He has introduced the soft bigotry of low expectations into our education system. He might have enjoyed studying the works of Jane Austen and Wilfred Owen, but he is denying England’s pupils the same access to our national canon if they take only the English language GCSE. If it was all right for him, at Robert Gordon’s college, why is it not okay for kids in Harlow and Blackpool today? Will he now urgently review the changes to English GCSE, or will he continue to dumb down our syllabus?

Michael Gove: Tragically, when I was a student at Robert Gordon’s college in Aberdeen, I was not able to take English GCSE, because I was in Scotland and GCSEs were not on offer at that time. As a historian, the hon. Gentleman could perhaps do with studying geography rather more.
	Under our new accountability system, which I urge the hon. Gentleman to study and which his colleague, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), welcomed, English will not count unless students study both English language and literature, and the English baccalaureate, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) supports, will be conferred on students only if they study both English language and literature. He talks about Jane Austen. One of the tragedies about the current English GCSE is that fewer than 1% of students who sit it actually read a word of Jane Austen. Before he asks another question in the House, may I recommend to him one particular text of hers—“Pride and Prejudice”? A knowledge of both things would certainly help him to be a more effective Opposition spokesperson.

Simon Burns: What precisely is being done to ensure the availability of high-quality early-years provision?

Elizabeth Truss: We have raised standards for early-years teachers so that they have to pass the same maths and English tests as primary and secondary school teachers, and this year we have seen a 25% increase in the number of students applying for those courses, so they are proving very popular.

Jenny Chapman: How is it possible to be an ardent champion of social mobility and at the same time have a close adviser who thinks that educational attainment is genetic?

Michael Gove: I will answer that one.

Kevin Brennan: Cummings is your hero.

Michael Gove: Thank you. The hon. Gentleman is my hero.
	As I have pointed out in speech after speech—I will send them to the hon. Lady—we must always seek to ensure that accidents of birth or circumstances never hold any child back. One of the great things about education is that children can constantly surprise us with their ability. To the historians on the Opposition Front Bench, I would recommend the words of my predecessor in my role as Education Secretary, Margaret Thatcher: advisers advise, but Ministers decide.

Duncan Hames: I welcome the Minister’s earlier commitment to healthy school lunches. Will he ensure that head teachers retain the autonomy to establish high standards in the provision of these lunches and are not, because of shared contracts, left at the mercy of one particular provider?

David Laws: We will ensure that head teachers have proper flexibility and that they see the conclusions of the school food plan, which demonstrates precisely how head teachers and schools can not only deliver free school meals in the future, but do so in a way that ensures their high quality.

Jack Dromey: One of Labour’s greatest achievements was 3,631 Sure Start centres, such as Story Wood and Lakeside in my constituency, transforming the lives of children. At the last general election, the then Leader of the Opposition said:
	“Yes, we back Sure Start. It’s a disgrace that”
	Labour
	“has been trying to frighten people about this.”
	Since then, 566 have closed. Is not the real disgrace making a promise to our nation’s children and then breaking it?

Elizabeth Truss: Last week, we heard that a record number of parents and children—more than 1 million—were using Sure Start centres. In fact, we have increased the number of sites: there are 3,000 children’s centres and a further 2,000 linked sites. The hon. Gentleman is referring to where management efficiencies have been made, but more parents are accessing our centres than ever before, and I think he should congratulate the centres on their success.

Mary Macleod: Last week, I was at the launch of the Sky academy in Osterley, which includes a Sky skills studio, scholarships for emerging talent, starting-out initiatives and living for sport. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can create similar initiatives in other sectors and establish a business ambassador for each school?

Matthew Hancock: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. She failed to mention that David Beckham was also at that launch,
	which was no doubt an exciting moment. I pay tribute to the Sky academy and to the work that has been put in to ensure that people going into the media and the arts have not only the skills but the mentoring and inspiration to make the best of their lives. That is exactly what is needed if we are to see more people getting the chance and the inspiration to reach their potential.

Luciana Berger: Today sees the launch of Juice FM’s Knives Wreck Lives campaign in Liverpool, which aims to raise awareness among people on Merseyside of just how damaging knives can be. Will the Secretary of State welcome the campaign, and tell the House what he is doing in our schools and colleges to inform young people about the perils of knife crime?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing our attention to that exemplary campaign. I have campaigned against knife crime since before my time in the House. I worked with the widow of Philip Lawrence, who was the tragic victim of such a crime, in order to raise awareness of what could be done to tackle it in and outside schools. I also worked with two former Home Secretaries to ensure that combat knives were banned. I am delighted that head teachers in schools across the country are today using a variety of innovative methods and working with a variety of third sector groups to alert children to the dangers of carrying and using knives, but there is of course much more to be done and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and other Members in that endeavour.

Paul Burstow: This is the first Government to use Government time and Government Bills to advance the cause and rights of carers. Having already taken the welcome step of ensuring that a whole-family approach is taken to young carers and the people they care for, will the Government consider what further steps they could take to extend that approach to parent carers of disabled children?

Edward Timpson: I know that my right hon. Friend worked hard on this issue in Government, and that he set up the carers strategy, which has done much to highlight this important area. We have made progress on young carers in the Children and Families Bill, and parent carers will benefit from the changes in our special educational needs reforms. I have met the Minister for Care and Support, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and looked at the existing legislative framework relating to parent carers. We are satisfied that there is no evidence that it needs to be changed or strengthened, but I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the matter further and to see what else we might be able to do to achieve the end that he seeks.

Chris Williamson: Following the abject failure of the Secretary of State’s free school experiment at the Al-Madinah school in Derby, will he now give the local education authority the ability to scrutinise the school and make it accountable to the
	LEA? If the school closes, will he ensure that Derby city council has sufficient resources to accommodate the children in council-run schools?

Michael Gove: There are certainly serious issues at the Al-Madinah free school, as we all acknowledge, but it is important to put them in context. Of the first 24 free schools to be inspected, 75% were good or better, whereas in the first tranche of new local authority schools set up in the same period, only half reached that quality threshold. It is also important to recognise that the local authority in Derby has a poor record of helping to challenge underperforming schools, and that outside providers such as Barry Day of Greenwood Dale have done far more to improve education in Derby than the local authority has ever done.

Anne McIntosh: Primary schools in rural communities face special challenges. In our recent report on rural communities, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee urged Ministers to give back to local authorities the flexibility to spend the most on those primary schools in the greatest need. Can we have that flexibility back?

Michael Gove: There is flexibility in the current approach. There is a lump sum attached to every school that ensures that smaller schools that are doing a great job can continue to provide high-quality education for children in rural areas, but the changes we are making to introduce a national fair funding formula will go even further to meet my hon. Friend’s concerns.

Kerry McCarthy: Local head teachers tell me that Bristol city council is advising them to offer funded early education in just the mornings or just the afternoons so that they can avoid the cost of providing free school meals to eligible children. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that these children are missing out on their school dinners and that statutory guidance to offer education at times that best support the child’s learning is being breached?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing that to my attention. I would love to have a chance to know more about the particular situation that she rightly raises. It is important that all children get the nutrition and the education they deserve.

Nick Harvey: Some 1.2 million children living within the Government’s own definition of childhood poverty do not get a free school meal. Why do the Government consider it a higher priority to give free school meals to all five, six and seven-year-olds, 1.3 million of whom can perfectly well afford to pay?

Michael Gove: I am pleased to be in a coalition Government when the Deputy Prime Minister has made a commitment to the extension of free school meals to five, six and seven-year-olds. We should never make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let me take this opportunity to praise Liberal Democrat colleagues who worked with us in order to ensure that more children have the opportunity to enjoy high-quality lunches. Let me say, too, to the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), with whom I normally agree, that on this
	occasion I have to part company with him and say that his leader has done the right thing, with which I am delighted to be associated.

Lisa Nandy: The Secretary of State has said that circumstances should never hold any child back. How, then, does he plan to respond to this week’s Institute for Fiscal Studies report that showed that grammar schools are five times less likely to admit poorer children than their state counterparts?

Michael Gove: The hon. Lady makes an important point. The introduction of academies and free schools is making sure that more children have the chance to attend academically excellent schools. For those living in areas where there are grammar schools who feel that the quality of education they enjoy is not good enough, we are providing choice through the growth of academies and choice through the growth of free schools. Through the pupil premium we are investing £2.5 billion for the very poorest children—a commitment to social justice of the kind to which I know Mr Speaker believes we should all be committed.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. That is quite a convenient way of trying to keep onside when time is pressing.

Philip Hollobone: Is it appropriate for either teachers or pupils to wear the full-face veil in the classroom, and if the answer is no, what regulations are in place to proscribe the wearing of such?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Matters of school uniform are rightly questions that head teachers should decide on, or college principals
	should be responsible for. I hope it is clear that the wearing of any item that impedes effective teaching or effective learning is something that we should all ensure does not happen in the classroom. I am working with both the chief inspector of schools and officials within the Department for Education in order to ensure that schools and individuals receive an unambiguous message about the vital importance of ensuring that cultural or other barriers do not impede the capacity to learn of children from whatever community.

Alex Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State agree with his most trusted adviser that “real talent” is rare among the nation’s teachers. If not, was it an error of judgment to give him free rein over education policy?

Michael Gove: I agree with all my advisers that real talent is rare on the Labour Benches, which is why it is so important that we ensure that this Government are re-elected in a few years’ time.

Annette Brooke: May I be assured that the asbestos in schools steering group will continue, given the importance of developing a clear, up-to-date policy and strategy regarding asbestos?

David Laws: We are still looking closely at the important issue of asbestos in schools, and we are beginning a review into this subject very shortly. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend has a full opportunity to contribute to the review.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise to colleagues, but we must move on.

Point of Order

John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Exceptionally, I shall take the point of order before the statement.

John Whittingdale: I am most grateful to you for making an exception in this case, Mr Speaker. As you are aware, Lord Triesman gave evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee as part of our inquiry into the 2018 world cup bid. During his evidence, under parliamentary privilege, Lord Triesman made specific accusations of corruption against four named members of FIFA’s executive committee. In the subsequent review conducted by the Football Association, Lord Triesman was careful to say in answer to questions from James Dingemans QC, who was conducting the review, that he invited him to rely on the evidence that he had given to the Select Committee, and that he did not wish to add to it. In January 2013, one of those accused, Mr Makudi, brought an action for defamation against Lord Triesman, which was struck out. However, in June this year the Court of Appeal granted leave to Mr Makudi to appeal.
	This matter goes to the heart of the privilege afforded to Members of Parliament and to witnesses who give evidence to Parliament. If witnesses to Select Committees cannot be confident that their evidence is covered by absolute privilege, and that if they do not repeat the allegations outside Parliament they are fully protected against legal action, that will severely damage the ability of Select Committees to obtain the information that they require. I should therefore be grateful, Mr Speaker, if you would consider what action you, or Parliament, can take to defend the principle of parliamentary privilege, which is a fundamental right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee with great skill, for his courtesy in giving me notice of his point of order.
	I have followed these matters very closely, and the possible implications give me cause for grave concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is awaiting determination by the Court of Appeal, so I will not of course comment on the substance of the case; but I will say to the hon. Gentleman, and to the House, that I consider these matters to be of such importance for the House and for its Members, and to the protection of free speech in our proceedings, that written submissions have been made to the court on my behalf by Speaker’s Counsel. I shall of course be following developments closely, as, I know, will the hon. Gentleman. I am extremely grateful to him.

Iran and Syria

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on developments in the Iran nuclear negotiations, and on our work to bring together a peace conference on Syria.
	I returned yesterday from E3 plus 3 negotiations with Iran in Geneva. This was the third round of talks in the last month, and it began last Thursday at official level. On Friday and Saturday, E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers joined the Iranian Foreign Minister at the negotiations.
	The threat of nuclear proliferation in the middle east is one of the greatest dangers to the peace and security of the world. That is why we must build momentum behind the Geneva negotiations, and why we and Iran must ensure that the opportunity of making progress does not slip away in the coming weeks.
	We had two days of intensive negotiations with Iran, which finished in the early hours of yesterday morning. These were complex and detailed discussions, covering every aspect of Iran's nuclear programme. Our aim is to produce an interim first step agreement with Iran that can then create the confidence and space to negotiate a comprehensive and final settlement. The talks broke up without our reaching that interim agreement, because some gaps between the parties remain. While I cannot go into the details of the discussions while the talks continue, I can say that most of those gaps are now narrow, and many others were bridged altogether during the negotiations. As we concluded the negotiations on Saturday night, all six E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers presented the same united position to Iran, which provides an extremely strong foundation for the next round of talks on 20 November.
	I pay tribute to Baroness Ashton and my Foreign Minister colleagues, including Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. He is a tough but constructive negotiator, who displayed a sincere and open approach throughout the talks. He and I took the opportunity to discuss further the bilateral relationship between Britain and Iran, and today both our Governments have formally appointed our new chargé d'affaires. I expect the new UK chargé to make his first visit to Iran this month.
	The Government are firmly in favour of reaching an interim agreement with Iran, as an essential step towards a comprehensive settlement. But given the extensive nature of Iran’s programme and the history of its concealment, the detailed terms of any agreement matter greatly. An agreement has to be clear and detailed, cover all aspects of Iran’s programme, and give assurance to the whole world that the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran is fully addressed. Such a deal is on the table, and there is no doubt in my mind that it can be reached. I am convinced that the agreement we were discussing would be good for the security of the entire world, and we will pursue it with energy and persistence.
	An interim agreement would involve offering Iran limited, proportionate sanctions relief. In the meantime, however, we will be vigilant and firm in upholding the international sanctions which have played an indispensable part in creating this new opening with Iran. Sanctions are costing the Iranian economy at least $4 billion a month and this cost will be maintained until we reach
	an agreement. Until such a moment, there is no question of us relaxing the pressure of sanctions in any way. We are determined to take every opportunity to reach a diplomatic settlement to the Iranian nuclear crisis, because the alternatives—nuclear proliferation or conflict—could be disastrous for the peace and security of the world, including the stability of the middle east.
	That stability is being severely undermined by the deepening crisis in Syria. Our objectives there remain to reach a political settlement to the conflict, thereby also protecting UK national security, to alleviate the desperate humanitarian suffering, and to prevent the further use of chemical weapons. On 22 October I hosted a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the 11 countries of the core group of the Friends of Syria, as well as the president and senior leadership of the Syrian National Coalition. We gave our united support to the UN-led Geneva II process, which should establish a transitional governing body with full Executive powers, formed by mutual consent. There was unanimous agreement that Assad and his close associates can play no role in a body formed by mutual consent. We also agreed to provide the National Coalition with additional political and practical support to give the Geneva conference the best chance of success, and urged the Coalition to commit itself to taking part in it. It has now done that, which I strongly welcome. Last night, its members agreed by consensus at a general assembly to attend the Geneva II talks, on the basis that this meant that Assad and those with blood on their hands would have no role in a transition. They also rightly called for humanitarian access and the release of detainees ahead of Geneva II. We continue to push for a date for a peace conference to be agreed, and UN and Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has reiterated that he is still trying to convene a conference before the end of the year.
	In the light of this decision by the Coalition, we will provide practical and political support to help it prepare to lead the opposition delegation. I will shortly lay before Parliament a proposal to increase our non-lethal support to the supreme military council of General Idris. This life-saving equipment will take the form of communications, medical and logistics equipment. There can be no peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria without a strong role for the legitimate, moderate opposition. I also welcome the vote last night by the National Coalition to confirm the inclusion of the Kurdish National Council in its ranks, which adds further to its broad representation of Syrian people.
	We are also particularly determined to ensure that the peace talks include a direct role for women’s groups, in accordance with Security Council decisions on women, peace and security. It is vital that women participate fully in the future Government and institutions of Syria, as they have an indispensable role to play in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society. We are ready to work with Mr Brahimi, his team, international NGOs and other countries to make this a reality. We will also work with the UN and its agencies to ensure that we give the women’s groups the support they need to participate effectively. In addition, we are encouraging the Syrian National Coalition to include women members in its delegation.
	So far we have committed over £20 million to support opposition groups, civil society, human rights defenders and media activists in Syria. This ranges from training
	and equipping search and rescue teams to providing up to £1 million to help survivors of sexual violence gain access to justice, and we will develop this assistance further.
	The humanitarian situation in Syria is one of unimaginable distress and suffering. Well over 100,000 people have died, and 11.5 million people—more than half of Syria’s population—are now in desperate need of assistance, either inside the country or as refugees in the region. The UN estimates that 2.5 million people are trapped in areas in Syria that aid is not reaching, including an estimated half a million men, women and children living under siege conditions. Severe acute malnutrition is emerging among children, and polio has reappeared, 14 years after the country was certified free of the disease.
	Appalling human rights violations are being committed, including the use of incendiary bombs against civilians, torture, rape, massacres and summary executions, and attacks on hospitals, schools and aid convoys. The regime has shown that it can facilitate access to chemical weapons inspectors when it wishes, and it could do so for humanitarian relief if it showed a shred of humanity and wished to do so. We need to address this crisis to save lives, and also to improve the prospects for the Geneva talks. On 2 October, we helped to secure a UN Security Council presidential statement which said that humanitarian aid must be able to reach all Syrians. That statement is clearly not being implemented. I spoke last week to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov urging his Government to try to persuade the regime to stop blocking the delivery of aid, and we would like to see stronger action in the UN Security Council, including a resolution, if necessary.
	In the Security Council, and through all other avenues available to us, we will press for: full humanitarian access and freedom of movement for trapped civilians; the evacuation of civilians from besieged areas; safe passage for medical personnel and convoys; the creation of hubs for the delivery of aid; cross-border assistance; and the lifting of bureaucratic burdens imposed by the regime. We will also work with the Coalition to improve access to aid in areas under its control. The UK is contributing £500 million to relief efforts, much of it to assist neighbouring countries, and the international community has provided $3 billion in funding for this year. But the fact that the existing UN appeal for this year is still nearly $2 billion short underlines just how extreme the humanitarian crisis is, and we call on all countries to do more.
	The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has confirmed that the destruction of Syria’s declared chemical weapons production, mixing and filling equipment is now complete. But some warheads and all of the bulk chemical agents and precursors remain, and must be eliminated. The UK has provided £2.4 million of support to this process, and we will continue to support the mission until Syria’s chemical weapons capability is eradicated.
	Diplomatic progress on all of these issues often seems intractable and difficult, but it is vital that diplomacy succeeds, and we will persist undeterred by the frustrations and delays. At the same time, we will strongly support the middle east peace process, which remains central to international peace and security. We do not underestimate the challenges, but firmly believe that if Prime Minister
	Netanyahu and President Abbas show further bold leadership, a negotiated two-state solution is possible. We are working with European partners to provide practical support to both sides, including bilateral assistance to the institutions of a future Palestinian state.
	We are likely to face a long period of turbulence in many areas of the middle east in the coming years, and if we do not succeed in diplomatic solutions in these three crucial conflicts and potential conflicts, the outlook would be dark indeed, for the region and for the peace and security of the world. In the coming weeks, we will maintain every possible effort to succeed.

Douglas Alexander: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this afternoon? On Iran, may I echo the tribute he paid generously to the efforts of Baroness Ashton, who played a crucial role in driving forward these latest talks, and pay tribute to the clear commitment shown by all the P5 plus 1 Ministers in attendance at Geneva? I admit that I was somewhat perplexed to see the Foreign Secretary here at 9.30 am on Friday, but he was right then to make the journey to Geneva.
	Labour remains of the view that a nuclear-armed Iran poses a real threat, not just to Israel, but to regional and international security. Therefore, we believe that the United Kingdom Government should continue to pursue the twin-track approach of sanctions and diplomacy. President Rouhani campaigned, and was subsequently elected in June, on a platform of taking the necessary steps to ease the pressure of the sanctions that are currently putting the Iranian economy under strain. So I do believe that sanctions have been effective and continue to be important. However, alongside continued sanctions sustained diplomatic engagement remains key, so I welcome the news of the Government’s announcement that a chargé d’affaires has now been appointed and hope that the British embassy in Tehran will be reopened as soon as it is safe and practical to do so.
	The Foreign Secretary said that he cannot go into the details of the negotiations while talks are ongoing, so today I will focus my questions on the outcome of the talks rather than the substance of the deal under discussion. Reports emerging over the weekend described a French veto that prevented any deal from being signed, yet Secretary Kerry was quoted this morning as saying:
	“The French signed off on it, we signed off on it, and everybody agreed it was a fair proposal…Iran couldn’t take it at that particular moment; they weren’t able to accept.”
	In the light of the somewhat conflicting reports, will the Foreign Secretary set out whether there was unity among the P5 plus 1 and say a little more about the basis on which he has just told the House that such a deal is on the table and that there is no doubt that it can be reached?
	It is inevitable and, indeed, understandable that as the outline of such a deal begins to emerge it will increasingly be called into question by those parties that have so much at stake. In the light of that reaction, will the Foreign Secretary set out what assurances have been offered to regional partners, particularly Israel, who are
	concerned that the principle of an interim deal will, by definition, not provide sufficient guarantees that Iran will cease all activity that could contribute to it developing a nuclear weapons capacity?
	Let me turn to the issue of Syria. The humanitarian situation in Syria remains desperate and continues to deteriorate. Clearly, the most effective way to ease the suffering in Syria is to end the war, but while efforts to broker a peace deal continue it is vital that the international community lives up to its responsibility to protect those most in need. I welcome the important work that the UK Government have been doing, but despite the UK’s contribution, the UN appeal is still less than half-funded. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore set out what steps the Government will be taking to try to help ensure that other donors deliver on their unfulfilled pledges?
	Since the last time the Foreign Secretary addressed the House on the issue, the OPCW has confirmed that Syria’s declared equipment for producing, mixing and filling chemical weapons has now been destroyed. Syria now has until mid-2014 to destroy the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons. Given that the OPCW team confirmed that it was not able to visit two of the 23 chemical weapons sites in Syria, as they were simply too dangerous, will the Foreign Secretary say what assurances are being sought for the protection of OPCW personnel who are due to carry out further work in conflict zones across the country?
	The biggest breakthrough that is needed to most improve the situation on the ground is a diplomatic initiative. As the Foreign Secretary stated, women will have a key role to play in peace talks and in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society as the conflict concludes. It is welcome that the SNC has today voted to accept the invitation to attend Geneva II as the representative of the Syrian opposition, but that acceptance is, as the Foreign Secretary has just told us, conditional on Assad and those with blood on their hands having no role in a transition and on the provision of humanitarian access and the release of detainees ahead of the conference being convened. In the light of those specific conditions, will the Foreign Secretary set out his assessment of the likelihood of those conditions being met according to the timetable of the year’s end set out by Lakhdar Brahimi?
	In the light of his most recent discussions with representatives of the Iranian regime, will the Foreign Secretary also tell us the British Government’s policy on Iran’s participation in any Geneva II conference before the end of the year? Geneva II still offers the best prospect for securing a more stable future for the people of Syria, so the Government will have the Opposition’s support in their efforts to try to bring about this long-delayed but much-needed conference.

William Hague: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s overall support for our twin-track approach on Iran and our efforts to ensure diplomatic success in bringing together a peace conference on Syria.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Iranian nuclear negotiations. It is not right to speak of any veto on the negotiations by any of the E3 plus 3, or P5 plus 1, countries. The position put to Iran by all of us together in the final hours of the discussions on Friday and Saturday had been amended in the light of comments from various of the parties concerned, but it is entirely
	permissible for members of the E3 plus 3 to put forward their own comments, amendments and positions. There are six sovereign nations involved—as well as the Iranians, who will put forward their positions, of course. A completely united position was put to the Iranians at the close of our discussions, so reports of vetoes by one country, or of obstruction by any country, should be seen in that light. We were all arguing for the same position and the same deal.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what assurances we had given to other countries, and referred to Israel’s concerns about the concept of making an interim deal, rather than going straight to a comprehensive final settlement. We have discussed that. During the talks, I spoke to the Israeli Minister responsible for international relations and security, Mr Yuval Steinitz, and this weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu, to give them our assurances and state our confidence in this kind of agreement.
	It has to be faced that attempts to go straight to a comprehensive final settlement would be dramatically more difficult than even this process, and it is quite evident from events over the weekend that this process is difficult enough. An interim agreement would be designed to give us the time and space to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement—time during which Iran would take concrete actions in relation to its nuclear programme, in order to give greater assurance and confidence to the international community, and we would offer proportionate and limited sanctions relief in return, but the pressure would still be there to conclude a comprehensive final settlement. There are concerns about this, but all of us in the E3 plus 3 countries believe that this is the most effective and practical way to reach a settlement with Iran.
	On the question about humanitarian relief, the UK has been very active, as the House knows, including through the meeting that the Prime Minister convened at the G20 and all our diplomatic efforts around that, in getting other nations to step up their humanitarian assistance. About $1 billion of additional assistance has, one way or another, been associated with the efforts that we have made. We will continue to make those efforts, but that appeal is $2 billion underfunded for this year, and of course we are in the middle of November and approaching the time for another UN appeal. We will strongly support the donor conference that has been called in Kuwait for the middle of January. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was in the Chamber a moment ago, is working very hard to help bring that together.
	The chemical weapons inspectors have now, one way or another, inspected all 23 sites, but of course their security during the continuing work is important. That has to be taken into account in the decision that the OPCW executive council needs to adopt by 15 November —this Friday. The decision is still under negotiation, but it is expected to set out the detailed requirements, including intermediate milestones, for the complete elimination of chemical weapons in Syria in the first half of 2014.
	On the stipulations made by the National Coalition regarding their support for the Geneva II process, I do not believe that they need to be obstacles to assembling a Geneva II peace conference. The statement—it is a view that we share—that Assad cannot be part of a
	transitional authority formed by mutual consent is not surprising. Any authority formed by mutual consent in Syria is unlikely to include those whom the other side regard as having very extensive blood on their hands. The calls for humanitarian assistance and humanitarian access, and for prisoners to be released, are calls that we should all be able to support in any case, so I do not think that those things should be seen as making a Geneva II conference more difficult. We now need the regime to respond in the same spirit.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the inclusion of Iran in the talks. We believe that the starting point for a Geneva II conference is the outcome of Geneva I last year, and that all parties to the talks should be able to accept that. I continue to urge Iran to adopt that position; it would make it much easier for the rest of the world to embrace it in the talks.

Menzies Campbell: I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend in respect of both these difficult issues, but may I invite him to return to the question of refugees? Is he aware that the refugee camp on the Jordanian side of the border with Syria is now the fourth largest city in Jordan, and that there are reports that within a few months medical services in Jordan may simply collapse under the weight and impact of the refugee problem? Does my right hon. Friend understand that if irreparable damage is done to Jordan, it is in no one’s interests, particularly not the United Kingdom, because Jordan is a very important ally of ours in the middle east? Will he give the House an assurance that the particular issue of Jordan and other neighbouring countries is within the contemplation of those with whom he is discussing Syria?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. My right hon. and learned Friend is quite right. Of the assistance that we have allocated so far, £175 million has been allocated for the neighbouring countries, and the largest single slice of that goes to Jordan. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east was there last week, and visited some of the affected areas. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that the refugee camp of which he speaks is now the fourth largest city in Jordan and the second largest refugee camp anywhere in the world. That is the scale of what we are dealing with. I discussed the position with His Majesty the King of Jordan two weeks ago. We regularly say to the Jordanians, “Is there anything else that we can do to assist?”, and we will continue to provide additional assistance as they need it.

Peter Hain: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that although his hard-headed but constructive response to the Iranian negotiations is the right one, if they do not succeed and the Iranians go back to Tehran without a deal, that will strengthen the Ahmadinejad-type hawks in Iran, so every opportunity must be taken to get that agreement while preserving the vital interests at stake? May I also ask about the Syrian situation? I worry about an apparent veto in advance as a precondition being struck by the opposition. Yes, they are willing to take part, but they seem to have imposed a precondition on that. Whatever the transition agreed—if there is one—I find it inconceivable that there will not be some elements of the existing regime in place, like it or not, in order to get an agreement.

William Hague: On the latter point, let us remember that what is envisaged in the communiqué of Geneva I is a transitional authority formed from the opposition and the current regime, but by mutual consent, so when the right hon. Gentleman refers to elements of the regime in a transitional Government, yes, that is accepted in the transitional Government, but the composition has to be by mutual consent. As I was just saying to the shadow Foreign Secretary, I do not believe that the opposition, in setting out their view of that, are setting preconditions or an unreasonable position ahead of Geneva. It would be very, very surprising if they adopted any position different from that in the run-up to these negotiations.
	On the first part of the question, I do agree broadly that there is a window of opportunity here for negotiations with Iran to succeed. That is why we are maintaining this pace of negotiations. With three meetings in the past month and another one planned for next week, we are not losing time in pursuing these negotiations.

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend is setting out a degree of progress with the Iranians that would have seemed very unlikely just a few short weeks ago, and we should not miss the significance of what has happened. However, he will be aware that the nuclear file is not the only issue with which the international community has problems in relation to Iran. In his bilateral conversations, did he get any inkling from the Iranians that they understood the problems caused by their sponsorship of international terrorism, their participation in Syria and their appalling human rights record? Will this be addressed as a matter of urgency by our new chargé d’affaires?

William Hague: Yes, My right hon. Friend is quite right that the sort of constructive meeting that came even close to an interim agreement at the weekend would have been hard to envisage a few months ago. That represents an important diplomatic advance. It is not, of course, good enough to have nearly got there; we have to really get there, but it is a big change in the atmosphere. My right hon. Friend is also right that we have many other difficulties with Iranian policies. I referred to those in my opening meetings with Mr Zarif. Certainly, our newly appointed non-resident chargé will be approaching all these issues across the full range of our relations.

Jack Straw: May I first thank the Foreign Secretary personally for the efforts that he has made to improve the bilateral relationship, which is crucial, both for our direct relations with Iran, but also in facilitating this kind of negotiation?
	On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), there is a danger, which I saw myself some years ago, that negotiations quite close to a deal lose momentum, and it is not only the hard-liners in Tehran who then get in on that, but, bluntly, those in Israel and in Washington, of both parties, and I think now in France, who start to undermine the pace and substance of those negotiations. May I offer the right hon. Gentleman full support, as my right hon. Friend has done, in resisting those clarion calls, for example from some elements in Israel, and some in Washington,
	which will have the effect of undermining the best chance that we have had for decades to secure a proper deal with Iran?

William Hague: Yes, we will remain very much committed. The right hon. Gentleman can hear from what I am saying that we are very committed to maintaining this momentum. It is a pity that we did not secure agreement on an interim agreement this weekend, because even losing 10 days implies some loss of momentum here. But as the right hon. Gentleman can gather, we will pick that up as quickly as we possibly can. We have scheduled another meeting immediately. It is important for everyone when they think about this to understand that the pressure is on all of us to reach an agreement—it is on Iran, because the sanctions are really biting and having a very serious impact on it, but it is on all of us if we want to see an agreement on this before the Iranian nuclear programme passes further very important stages in its development. We all have to bear that in mind. That means that an interim first step agreement is in the interests of the whole world.

Richard Ottaway: On Iran, no deal is better than a bad deal, and I wish my right hon. Friend well in bringing the Iranians back to the negotiating table. On Syria, as we are witnessing complete deadlock, does he agree now that the danger is the break-up of the region’s national boundaries, established after the first world war, as the different entities compete for territory and resources and build alliances along ethnic and cultural grounds?

William Hague: That is one of the dangers, yes. That is absolutely correct. There are many dangers here, but the conflict in Syria becoming more sectarian in its nature and then exacerbating such tensions in neighbouring countries, with a greater and greater disregard for national boundaries, is absolutely a central danger here. That is why it is so important that we give the support to neighbouring countries, including the support that we give to the Lebanese armed forces, which I have described on other occasions, and it is the urgency behind the efforts to come to a political solution to the conflict before it does even greater damage to the entire region.

David Winnick: The situation in Syria is indeed appalling, and everyone will endorse what the Foreign Secretary said and the need for humanitarian aid. On the talks with the Iranian Foreign Minister, is it not a fact that the Israeli Prime Minister has been very active in trying to gather opposition, including hard-line elements in the United States? Is it not essential that, despite such efforts to undermine what could be a great achievement for peace and security, the talks should succeed?

William Hague: It is important that the talks should succeed. It is very important that we pursue a steady course through this to an agreement that is demanding, of course, and which gives the necessary assurances and brings about concrete actions in Iran’s nuclear programme. We should not be surprised that in different countries people have different opinions about this. That is what we have to deal with as politicians and Ministers. We have to persuade other countries as best we can. We will continue to be very active, talking to Israel and other
	countries with concerns, not being at all surprised that people have concerns, but putting the case for what we think is right.

John Baron: Hard-liners in both Iran and the west, including Israel, will want the talks to fail. Given their historic nature, if successful they could lead to other talks on a range of issues in the middle east. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any move by Congress to increase sanctions would be counter-productive and could scupper the talks before they finish?

William Hague: The US Congress will make its own decisions—it does not necessarily do the bidding of the US Administration, let alone the UK Administration, so I will not lay down what it should and should not do. It is currently debating further sanctions against Iran. I think that it is very important for the Iranian authorities to understand that there will be pressure for greater sanctions, or an intensification of sanctions, unless an agreement is reached on these matters, so they need to be fully aware of that pressure.

Nigel Dodds: As we edge towards a deal, albeit an interim one, on the nuclear issue with Iran, will the Foreign Secretary underline for the House the fact that this country will in no way shrink from standing by Iran’s neighbours, and Israel, against threats and state-sponsored terrorism, either now or in future, because there are bound to be concerns about that, as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) mentioned earlier?

William Hague: Those are very serious concerns. As the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) have mentioned, it is important to keep up the momentum in addressing the nuclear programme, but that does not mean that we do not have other disagreements. The state sponsorship of terrorism and, in particular, the heavy Iranian involvement that is exacerbating the Syrian conflict and supporting a regime that is perpetrating such murder and abuse of its own people are malign activities in the wider region, but that should not deter us from trying to solve the nuclear issue.

Brooks Newmark: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on re-engaging with Iran, which could play an important role in bringing peace, particularly to Syria. It would be helpful if he could enlighten us on his discussions with the Iranian Foreign Minister on what critical path the Iranians see to bringing peace in Syria and, on the flip-side of that coin, what conversations he has had with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, which still seem to be supplying Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS, ISIL and other jihadis who are already preventing peace in the region.

William Hague: On the question about Saudi Arabia and other states, those countries are part of the core Friends of Syria group and among the 11 countries that came to London at my invitation a few weeks ago. I discuss the situation regularly with His Royal Highness Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, and we have all agreed that our support should go through the supreme military council of General Idris and the Syrian National Coalition.
	Those 11 countries have agreed that we should not support other groups in Syria, particularly extremist groups, so we look to our partners in the group to live up to those commitments. On the question about Iran, our discussions on Syria have been centred, as I mentioned earlier, on Iran supporting the outcome of Geneva I as the basis for a political settlement in Syria, but it has not yet given that support.

Gisela Stuart: Of course it is important to prepare for peace and useful to talk about mutual agreement, but right now there is a civil war in Syria. Given that we have clearly stated that President Assad and those close to him will have no role in that future, what incentive is there for Assad not simply to fight to the bitter end?

William Hague: This is not a position that we have just adopted in this country. The Geneva I communiqué of June last year sets out plans for a transitional authority formed from regime and opposition, as I pointed out earlier, and by mutual consent. It therefore does not exclude everyone in the current Syrian regime, but it would clearly be impossible—on the basis not only of Geneva I, but of any practical political consideration—to unite Syria again around an Administration centred on President Assad. After so much blood has been spilled and after a country has become so divided, it is inconceivable that that could happen. This is only the practical politics of the matter, and that is something that needs to be faced up to.

Julian Lewis: But if there is no sign that the opposition will be able to overthrow President Assad, is not what the Government are doing and proposing rather unrealistic? Would it not be more practical, in terms of helping to stop the suffering, to try to negotiate a ceasefire between both sides without any preconditions?

William Hague: Neither we nor other members of the Security Council would be opposed to a ceasefire, but my hon. Friend is aware of the history of these things in Syria. If it were possible to negotiate and enforce a ceasefire, it would be possible to do a great many other things as well. We are not even able to secure humanitarian access to areas at the moment, let alone negotiate an agreed ceasefire, so I do not think it is unrealistic to try to assemble a peace conference, based on a communiqué that all the permanent members of the Security Council and many of the regional countries were prepared to support last year, and to get a process going on that basis, which of course could include ceasefires, if we could only sit down and start deliberating on these things together.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be a warm welcome for his statement, particularly on Iran, and great support for his robust and positive attitude towards the negotiations? He paid a warm tribute to the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javid Zarif, and he will recall that a similar opportunity arose back in 2005—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the then Foreign Secretary, will recall this very clearly—but it was torpedoed by elements on our side, particularly in America. We know there are difficulties, but clearly it is
	important that Zarif is given the chance to succeed. Given that he is obviously a man we can do business with , we wish him well in concluding that business.

William Hague: Absolutely. He is a tough negotiator. I do not want anybody to think anything other than that, because he represents his country very ably and very frankly. He does not hold back from telling us when there is a serious problem. Those are all hallmarks that one would expect from a good negotiator. Yes, we will continue to work closely with him, knowing that he has to keep, or win, the full confidence of the Iranian system, just as we have to maintain confidence in western and Arab nations and in Israel that we are doing the right thing.

James Clappison: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s policy of vigilance towards Iran. May I suggest that it is extremely desirable that any eventual agreement with Iran leaves it standing nowhere near the threshold of becoming a nuclear armed power, because that would be very bad news for the region and for this country and the rest of the world?

William Hague: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is totally right about that. Of course, the purpose of our negotiations is to ensure that concrete actions are taken, even as part of an interim step, to give necessary assurances to the international community and to then allow us to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of this issue. That, of course, means dealing with all the concerns about what the International Atomic Energy Agency calls the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that his strategy and that of the other allies around the table is for a nuclear weapon-free middle east? Is it not odd that in a very long statement he did not mention that Israel actually possesses nuclear weapons and a delivery system? Does he envisage a conference on a nuclear weapon-free middle east that will include, obviously, Iran and other countries, but in particular Israel? Otherwise, it would simply make no sense at all.

William Hague: I do envisage such a conference taking place. I did not mention that in my statement because there were many new things to report, but we have often discussed it in the House. We argued that there should be such a conference during the non-proliferation treaty review in 2010. There has been a small amount of progress in preparing the way for that in the past couple of weeks. I hope that we will have more to say about it in the next month or so.

Julian Brazier: I commend my right hon. Friend’s position on Iran and wish him well on that. I also congratulate him on the work in Lebanon and Jordan. What discussions has he had with Foreign Minister Lavrov about the peace process? Where do the Russians stand on the pre-conditions that we have set out for the ultimate goal of that process?

William Hague: I have had many discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov. The Foreign Ministers of all five permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia, agreed in New York at the end of September to
	use our best efforts to bring a Geneva II peace conference together. As the House has heard, we are working hard on our side of that agreement to bring the opposition, the national coalition, to Geneva. We look to Russia to use its influence to bring the Assad regime there on the same basis, which is to work from the Geneva I communiqué. That involves a transitional authority formed by mutual consent.

Frank Roy: Last year, there were 200,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq; there are now more than 2 million. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Arab League on the growing crisis?

William Hague: That is very much something that we discuss with the Arab League and its individual members. When we are looking for greater contributions to humanitarian support, it comes bilaterally from the individual Arab nations. Many of them are substantial contributors to humanitarian assistance, although not always through UN channels. We will encourage them to do more. The fact that Kuwait is holding the next donor conference in the middle of January is a strong signal of the commitment of Gulf states to assist. Of course, we will encourage that hard over the coming weeks.

David Davies: May I commend the Foreign Secretary for his efforts to normalise relations with Iran? How much support does he think there is for the Syrian National Council among the Shi’a, Christian and Alawite minorities? Does he agree that, without their support, no future Government will be stable?

William Hague: The Syrian National Coalition represents many groups, communities and political persuasions. For instance, I mentioned in my statement that the Kurdish National Council will become part of the national coalition. The coalition has Christian representatives, not only among its membership, but among the leaders of the national council, which is a component of the national coalition. It has to be said that most Alawite support in Syria sticks with the Assad regime. However, I believe that it is important for Alawites to see that a political solution, along the lines of a transitional Government, is necessary for progress to be made.

Angus Robertson: It has been announced in Tehran and confirmed in Vienna that a framework agreement has been reached between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran on recent nuclear activities. Will the Foreign Secretary give some background on that agreement and confirm that it is a good sign that diplomatic progress can and will be made?

William Hague: Absolutely. That happened just this afternoon, after my statement went to press, to be printed for the House. The International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran have agreed this afternoon
	“to strengthen their cooperation and dialogue aimed at ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme”.
	We welcome that agreement. It is another positive sign, provided that the verification activities that have been agreed to allow us to resolve all the past and present
	issues that have been raised by the IAEA. It is important that Iran addresses the substance of the agency’s concerns over what it calls the
	“possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme”.

Bob Stewart: Twenty-one years ago, I was ordered to take a British force under United Nations command into the Balkans. There was no ceasefire; we acted under a United Nations mandate. Is there no possibility that the Security Council might pass a mandate suggesting a humanitarian mission into Syria, even though the present Government do not agree to that? That would definitely encourage the present Assad Government to approve it.

William Hague: Realistically, there is unfortunately no prospect of the Security Council agreeing a mandate for any military mission into Syria, as that would undoubtedly be resisted and blocked by Russia and China. I hope that, if this situation continues, they will at least agree to a resolution in the Security Council, requiring the Assad regime to comply with presidential statements issued by the Security Council and therefore greatly increasing legal and diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime. I think that is the next step that will become necessary on current trends.

George Howarth: Further to the Foreign Secretary’s earlier exchange with the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) about state-sponsored terrorism, will he perhaps go a little further and agree that it is both unacceptable and counter-productive for the Iranians still to sponsor Hezbollah?

William Hague: Yes, I do agree with that. Close Iranian links with Hezbollah are one of the reasons Iran sends such active and enormous assistance to the Assad regime, because that is the physical connection with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Such support does not contribute—far from it—to international peace and security. I hope that in due course we will address all those issues together, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that we must first take on the nuclear programme.

Stephen Mosley: Despite last month’s UN Security Council presidential statement, the Assad Government are still blocking aid to Syria. During the Foreign Secretary’s discussions last week with the Russian Foreign Minister, did the Russian Government make any firm commitment to put pressure on the Assad Government to allow humanitarian relief into Syria?

William Hague: Russia has not made new commitments to secure such humanitarian aid. Russia is in favour of the presidential statement agreed at the Security Council; we could not have passed it as a presidential statement had it not been. Russia agrees in principle and is signed up to what we are all saying to the Assad regime and opposition groups in Syria, which is to permit humanitarian aid to go to badly affected areas. We would like to see Russia put the Assad regime under greater pressure. I hope that will happen, but so far I have not received a commitment that it will do so.

Keith Vaz: I, along with others, welcome the approach taken by the Foreign Secretary. On humanitarian aid, I understand that £90 million of Syrian assets are in banks in London. Other EU countries have used such assets in their countries to pay for humanitarian aid. Will the Foreign Secretary speak to the Chancellor to see whether we can also access that money to supply more humanitarian aid to the people of Syria?

William Hague: We are looking at that and at related issues. We are making a huge contribution to humanitarian aid, but our biggest difficulty is getting the aid through, even if it can be financed. On the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman, there can be considerable legal difficulties, as well as the additional difficulty of ensuring that, if aid is passed to various groups, it really goes for humanitarian purposes. We are looking at such issues, however, and I will undertake to update him about them.

Rehman Chishti: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of national coalition statements that President Assad can have no role to play in the transition. The Foreign Secretary will also have seen a recent statement from the regime, which says that it will attend the conference “in principle” but will not negotiate with “terrorists”, referring to the opposition. The regime also says that any political solution will not involve Mr Assad’s departure. In the light of those comments, how optimistic is the Foreign Secretary about the success of Geneva II? Finally, he says that the six countries in Geneva had different opinions on Iran. Out of those six countries, which one had the greatest reservations about Iran’s concessions?

William Hague: To be clear on the six countries, I have said that they presented the same united position to Iran. I pointed out that they are entitled to put forward their views and amendments and so on, but the end product was that all six countries put the same united position to Iran. It is important that the House bears that in mind.
	My hon. Friend’s points on a Geneva II conference on Syria illustrate the formidable difficulty of bringing such a conference together. That difficulty is widely acknowledged. It would be unrealistic to expect that the parties to the conflict will arrive at Geneva II stating similar positions. The regime will of course say that approaching negotiations does not imply that President Assad will go, and the opposition, when their people are suffering so much at the hands of Assad, will of course say that, in a transition by mutual consent, he will have to go. It would be absolutely astonishing if either said anything different from that.

Mark Hendrick: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary and E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers on getting Iran to the negotiating table and on getting as far as they have, but would it not have been better to get the E3 plus 3 together before meeting the Iranians to get a united position, rather than letting the Iranians negotiate differences between the six countries and ending up with the failure in discussions that we currently face?

William Hague: The E3 plus 3 meets regularly. The round of negotiations that we have just had is the third one in the past month. We also met as Ministers in New York. When there are new developments in proposals on the
	table, they must be discussed. As I have said, the E3 plus 3 is six sovereign nations, so of course there must be such discussions, but the end product of this weekend’s negotiations was that all six nations put the identical deal to Iran. When one considers that that includes Russia, China, America and the three European countries—we have put forward an identical position—one concludes that it is a remarkable degree of international unity. We should see it that way around.

Martin Horwood: I strongly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s report that the Syrian national coalition will participate in the Geneva talks and that it will reach out to national minorities. That is important. Will he expand on what more we can do to support, both inside and outside the negotiating chamber, the moderate Syrian opposition, who are opponents both of the murderous Assad regime and of al-Qaeda and its local allies?

William Hague: We can do more to support the moderate opposition. I mentioned in my statement the £20 million-worth of support we have committed to them and civil society groups so far. I have also mentioned that I will be laying before Parliament a proposal to give additional assistance, particularly life-saving equipment, including communications equipment, which will help them. We will also help them practically and politically to prepare for Geneva II in terms of their ability to administer such a process and organise themselves for a very large and complex international conference. We will provide the expertise that helps them to do that as well as the practical, material support that we are already giving them.

Derek Twigg: May I pursue that point? The Secretary of State said that he intends shortly to lay before Parliament a proposal to increase non-lethal support. What is the timetable and will Parliament be expected to vote on it?

William Hague: It will happen soon. I cannot be specific on the day, but we are working on the details. When I say, “lay before Parliament,” I mean notifying the relevant parliamentary Committees of the assistance that we will provide. That is our normal procedure, and the Committees will have a number of days to consider the proposals before such assistance can be provided. We will be doing that in the normal way; the way that we have done it for previous blocks of support to the opposition.

James Morris: I welcome progress on negotiations with the Iranians, but does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be wrong for us to proceed towards an agreement with Iran without taking into account the legitimate concerns of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, about Iran’s regional ambitions and hegemony?

William Hague: We must take into account the concerns of other nations. That does not mean that we will always agree, but we must take them into account. We must be able to assure them that any deal is worth while and will achieve its objectives—we have to be confident
	of that. Any deal has to be detailed and extensive and has to cover all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, so that such concerns can be satisfied.

Andrew Love: The Foreign Secretary tells the House that it is unrealistic to believe that we can convene a Geneva II conference on Syria on any basis other than the Geneva I communiqué, yet many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that it is even more unrealistic to try to base it on that wording for the reasons that we have discussed this afternoon. The situation in Syria is getting worse and the polarisation of both sides is intensifying. Is it therefore not incumbent on the British Government and the international community to do everything that they can to bring the parties together for a peace conference?

William Hague: That is incumbent on us and the rest of the Security Council, and I hope the hon. Gentleman has gathered from my remarks that we are doing that. That was the purpose of assembling the Friends of Syria group here and of all our work in recent weeks with the Syrian National Coalition. However, when he questions whether the basis of Geneva II should be the Geneva I communiqué, I have to tell him that if we did not have that as our starting point we would lack any common baseline. We would be going well back in our negotiation of a peace in Syria. The communiqué was agreed by Russia, as well as by the UK and the United States. At various stages, even the Assad regime said that it supported it, although that has not always been clear. If that cannot be the basis for peace negotiations, we would struggle to assemble any alternative. It is therefore important that we try to build on the Geneva I communiqué.

Philip Hollobone: Iran’s supposed rapprochement with the international community could be nothing but a ruse to give it diplomatic cover to buy more time to complete a nuclear warhead. The ultimate test of any agreement, whether an interim agreement or a complete agreement, is whether the Israelis and the Saudi Arabians believe it. If the Israelis do not, they will contemplate a military strike; and if the Saudi Arabians do not, they will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan. What can the Foreign Secretary tell the House to give us the confidence that this is not a ruse by Iran?

William Hague: We should never be surprised by scepticism about Iran’s intentions. Indeed, we should often share a good deal of that scepticism, given its past record of concealment of large aspects of its nuclear programme and its defiance of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council. We should always have a great deal of sympathy with such scepticism, but our answer has to be that we will be able to make a deal—a first step deal—with Iran provided that there is real substance: if concrete actions are taken, those actions are visible and verified, and their absence cannot be concealed from the international community. We would then have a deal in which we could have confidence and which we could recommend to other countries, including Israel and the Gulf states.

Alison McGovern: The Foreign Secretary rightly pointed out in his statement that 500,000 people were living in siege conditions in Syria.
	Of course, more resources need to be mobilised, but will he say a bit more about how we can get resources to people, specifically children facing severe malnutrition?

William Hague: We are working hard to get resources to them, and DFID is succeeding in getting resources and help to all 14 governorates of Syria, so aid is reaching all parts of Syria. In those siege conditions, however, aid is effectively being blocked, predominately by the Assad regime, so we need political pressure to be applied on it, including by Russia and other countries in the region. We will keep up the demand for that pressure, as well as supporting the effort to meet the needs of children that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced and the work of the World Health Organisation in, for instance, vaccinating against polio.

Bob Russell: How many nuclear weapons does Israel have?

William Hague: Three years ago, it was my initiative to declare for the first time the number of nuclear warheads possessed by the United Kingdom, but I am not in a position to declare the number possessed by any other country.

Bob Russell: Go on, have a guess!

Mr Speaker: There is no obligation on the Foreign Secretary to have a guess, especially as the statement is about Iran and Syria, so the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), even by his own standards, has been exceptionally cheeky.

Mark Durkan: The Foreign Secretary has expressed a determination to see a direct role for
	women’s groups in Syrian peace talks and has stated that he will work with others to support such participation if it can be realised. Is he encouraged about the prospects, and how is the Syrian National Coalition responding to his encouragement to include women in its delegation?

William Hague: I am encouraged by some of the response, and I pay tribute to the work already done by the Government of the Netherlands to push this idea; we will work closely with them. I think that there is a lot of support for this at the UN, and we will be very determined about it, so yes I am encouraged by some of the initial reaction. Now that the Syrian National Coalition has made its decision in principle about attendance at the Geneva II talks, we will start going into these sorts of issues in more detail with it.

Sarah Wollaston: The Foreign Secretary referred in his statement to the re-emergence of polio 14 years after its eradication. This terrible and entirely preventable disease is a threat beyond international boundaries, so surely it is in Iran’s self-interest to support access for humanitarian and, crucially, medical aid across Syria. Will he reassure the House that that point will be stressed in his ongoing negotiations with Iran?

William Hague: Yes, I will. That is a very good point, and we will certainly pursue it with Iran and all other neighbouring countries. A comprehensive polio response, led by the WHO, is intended to reach 22 million across seven countries in the next seven months, and a regional polio control centre is being established in Amman in Jordan, but we need all the countries in the region to contribute, including Iran, and we will pursue that point with it.

Personal Statement

Nadine Dorries: On Monday 11 November, the Committee on Standards published a report on my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests which concluded that I had breached the rules relating to how I registered information. Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise to the House fully and unreservedly for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the rules, with which I have at all times sought to comply.

Mr Speaker: I thank the hon. Lady for that statement.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Mr Speaker: The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I should like to start by offering an apology to the House and to you, Mr Speaker. I shall not be able to be here for the wind-ups at the end of the debate because, in my role as Lord Chancellor, I have to take part in the formal proceedings of the Lord Mayor’s banquet this evening. I have written to the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), to explain the position.
	I have read with interest the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, and it might be helpful to explain to the House what the Bill will do, and what it will not do. It will make reforms to the sentencing framework so as to bring to an end the situation in which a prisoner can walk out of the prison gates with £46 in their pocket and with no one to meet them, no one to plan for their release, and no one to ensure that they do not return to the same streets and the same people and commit further crimes with no one to try to stop them. The Bill will not make any changes to the probation service.
	It is the plans to put an end to prisoners walking out of prison with no support that the Opposition are planning to vote against tonight. They are planning to vote against our plans to end the situation in which drug addicts serving short sentences are simply stabilised on methadone for a few weeks because the prison staff know that they will not turn up for rehabilitation when they leave and therefore think that it is not worth starting it. We also want to put an end to the situation in which a young person freshly out of care finds themselves in our criminal justice system and has no help or guidance to sort out their life when they are released. The Opposition are planning to vote against that proposal tonight.
	Despite what is suggested in the completely flawed amendment, which is supported by the Opposition in the other place—and which on one reading would make it impossible for even the current probation trusts to alter their local delivery units without parliamentary approval—the Bill will do nothing to reorganise or restructure our probation services. It is not about probation. The changes that we debated two weeks ago are not part of the Bill. They are about our decision to put into action the reforms set out by the Labour Government in their Offender Management Act 2007, which provides us with the legal basis for our probation reforms. This Bill is not about those reforms.

Ian Lucas: What will be the additional cost of the Government’s proposals?

Chris Grayling: The proposals contained in this Bill will be delivered within the existing budget for our probation services.
	In saying that they want to oppose and destroy the Bill, the Opposition are actually trying to set back for years the task of dealing with our biggest criminal justice challenge. That would simply create more and more victims of crime, which could have been prevented. Their short-sighted wrecking strategy will get them absolutely nowhere.

Guy Opperman: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I declare an interest in that I published a book last year entitled “Doing Time”. I support the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy being proposed in the Bill was originally put forward in the previous Government’s custody plus programme, which was derived from the Offender Management Act 2007?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Labour has argued for this, legislated for it and U-turned on it. The shadow Secretary of State has stated endlessly over the past few months that the Opposition now support the principle, but they are going to vote against it tonight. That is a sign of how poor an Opposition they are, how unfit they would be to govern, and how out of touch they are with the criminal justice challenges in this country.
	It might assist the House if I started by summarising the issues facing short-sentence offenders. Many need housing; 38% of them need help finding a place to live when they are released. Many are out of work; only 30% have found employment within two years of being released, while 83% will have claimed out-of-work benefits in the same period. Huge numbers of them need help with education, with work-related skills. A fifth had a mental health or an emotional problem, a third self-report as having a drugs problem and 65% have used illegal drugs in the four weeks before going into prison custody. Those are the people who Labour Members want to leave prison with no support at all.

Rehman Chishti: Does the Secretary of State agree that the reforms in the Bill will avoid what happened to my constituent’s son, who after serving nine months in prison was released with £16 in his pocket, a travel card and nothing else, putting him in danger of committing another offence because he lacks accommodation and the long-term support that he needs?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I cannot understand why Labour wants to vote against providing 12 months of supervision support for everyone who leaves prison, which should ensure that they do not reoffend.

Martin Horwood: There is one reference in the Bill to the controversial changes to the probation service—found in the new clause 1, which was introduced by our noble Friends up the corridor. Will the Secretary of State reassure those of us who are reassured by that precautionary clause that no change to it will be attempted?

Chris Grayling: The problems with the precautionary clause are twofold. First, it is worth saying that this House voted for the reforms by a substantial majority last week. Secondly, the precautionary provision would prevent any change whatever to the entire probation service from being made. The clause is completely flawed. It would prevent any kind of restructuring or reorganisation within an individual trust, let alone any other part of what is proposed. I am afraid that we will therefore seek to overturn that amendment in Committee because, as I say, it would make it impossible to run the probation service, even in its current form.
	We are talking about people who have offended before, some of whom are often highly persistent offenders, and far too many of them go on to reoffend. In 2011, about 50,000 adult offenders were released from short prison sentences. Nearly 60% of that group went on to reoffend, committing a total of 85,000 crimes. That is 85,000 crimes too many—a depressing merry-go-round of offending, blighting the lives of men, women and children in all our constituencies.
	Labour Members have talked about us taking risks with public safety, so let me tell them what really is taking risks with public safety. It is leaving the situation unchanged. Those 85,000 crimes include some of the most serious crimes that our society knows—thousands of them each year, including hundreds of serious sexual and violent offences. Yet we are leaving the people who commit those crimes to go on and on unsupervised.

Kate Green: The probation service, of course, has never been asked or required to supervise that group of offenders before, so is there any reason why the Justice Secretary could not give the public probation service the opportunity to carry out this supervision when the legislation passes?

Chris Grayling: I refer to what Labour said in 2010—that it could not do that. The hon. Lady and her colleagues said very clearly that they could not afford to proceed with custody plus—the scheme that they brought forward that would enable the probation service to provide supervision for these offenders. We have come up with a way of doing that. Labour said that in 2010—just before the last election. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. We are talking about people who go on and on and on committing crimes, unsupervised. I see that as the real public safety scandal; it is a flaw in our system that I want to solve and Labour Members seem not to want to solve.
	Sadly, it is no surprise that reoffending rates for this group are so high. The average time served in custody for that group is only nine weeks—not nearly long enough to tackle these issues while in prison. After that, they are released at the halfway point with £46 in their pocket and little or no support. Some engage with voluntary rehabilitation programmes after their release, but at the moment there is no mandatory period of supervision in the community. That is what this Bill changes. The core of the change in this Bill is the delivery of 12 months of supervision for those people.

Madeleine Moon: The 35 probation trusts across England and Wales have been judged either good or excellent. Why is it not right that they cover serious and persistent offenders who have served
	short sentences? The right hon. Gentleman feels that this change can be done within the current £8 billion decade budget for the probation service, but how can there be no cuts to probation and such an extension into short-term sentences unless the task remained with the probation service? Otherwise, probation services would have to be cut.

Chris Grayling: I am afraid that the hon. Lady has not understood what we are seeking to achieve. The Select Committee observed, in a good piece of work, that the present system was far too bureaucratic, and that only a minority of probation time was spent on working with offenders. We are seeking to create a simpler system in which we give much more professional freedom to those on the front line. We want to deliver an environment in which we can mentor and support people, and we want to bring together the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors, not only to make the system more efficient but to deliver high-quality mentoring.
	The hon. Lady raised the question of performance. The probation trusts are currently hitting many targets, but there is one simple reality at the heart of all this: reoffending is currently increasing, and I do not think that that is good enough.
	Let me explain some of what the Bill will actually do. Clause 2 provides for this group of offenders to spend the second half of their sentences subject to licence conditions in the community, like all other prisoners. Clause 3 creates an innovative period of additional supervision, which is added to the licence to make a total of 12 months' mandatory rehabilitation and support after release. I think that that is the least that we should have in our system; it is extraordinary that we do not have it already.
	The supervision period is there not to punish offenders, but to help them to move away from crime. We want those who work with offenders to try new, innovative approaches to rehabilitation. I look forward to seeing the voluntary sector, for example, playing a much larger role. We all see good work done in that sector, and I want to see more of it being done in our formal systems.
	A range of flexible requirements can be imposed during the supervision period. They are set out in schedule 1, and include participating in rehabilitative activities including restorative justice, being tested for drugs, and attending appointments to address drug misuse. Those requirements are designed to give those who work with offenders the ability to steer them during the months after their release from prison. The freedom to innovate will be critical to the driving down of reoffending rates in this group.
	We are focusing particularly on drug use, which is common among offenders who are serving custodial sentences. Two thirds of those who are serving sentences of less than 12 months have used class A drugs, while three quarters have used class B or class C drugs. Drug use among prisoners is also strongly associated with reconviction on release. The rate of reconviction among prisoners who report having used drugs in the four weeks before custody is more than double the rate among those who have never used drugs. That applies to drugs in class A, class B and class C.
	Clause 12 expands the current power to test offenders for drugs while they are on licence to include class B as well as class A drugs. Schedule 1 creates an equivalent testing condition for the supervision period that will follow the licence period. All that is an essential part of trying to ensure that when people come out of prison, we do all that we can to move them off drugs as quickly as possible, in a regime in which they are obliged to take part.
	Let me now explain what will happen if an offender does not engage with supervision. Breach of any of the supervision requirements will be dealt with by the magistrates courts, and there will be an important new role for lay justices and district judges. Clause 4 provides a flexible set of sanctions that magistrates may—not must—impose if a breach is proved. They can impose a fine, between 20 and 60 hours of community payback, a curfew with an electronic tag, or committal back to custody. There is no “escalator” approach requiring a more onerous sanction to be used if a lighter-touch one has been imposed before.
	The Bill also makes reforms to the two types of sentence that are served in the community—suspended sentence orders and community orders. Reoffending rates following those sentences are less stark than those following short prison sentences, but it is no less important for us to address them. Nearly everyone who ends up in our prisons has previously served a community sentence, and many of those people experience problems similar to those experienced by short-sentence offenders: problems involving mental health, alcohol consumption and drug misuse. Clause 15 creates a new rehabilitation activity requirement to mirror the new supervision condition that will be available for offenders who are released from short prison sentences. As with the top-up supervision period created by clause 3, that will provide maximum flexibility for those working with offenders, enabling them to instruct them to attend appointments or participate in activities.

David Burrowes: I have a question concerning the flexibility in the new rehabilitation requirements. Can the Justice Secretary give me an assurance about the current 2003 requirements, in particular the mental health, alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements that have not yet come into force, and where there is a real need for the courts to ensure that the orders are carried out? I know from my own experience that, sadly, orders have not always been complied with. Can he assure me that those powers will still remain even though there will be that flexibility?

Chris Grayling: The powers will certainly remain. What will be different is that having a 12-month supervision period—a period of mentoring—for people once they have left prison, or for those going through a community sentence, will provide much more of a pressure-point to get them to turn up for rehabilitation and go for mental health treatment, because there will be someone working alongside them who gets to know them and to understand them, and who can cajole and encourage them.
	It is worth highlighting the experience we have had so far in Peterborough. There has been a huge drop in the relative level of reoffending; the number of crimes committed by the cohort going through the Peterborough trial is much lower than that committed by their equivalents
	in other parts of the country. The overall reoffending rate has fallen as well. That is a success story we should build on, and we will build on it.

Guy Opperman: It is not just Peterborough, is it? There is also Doncaster prison, which is the flagship of modern prisons—and I should say that it was set up in its present form under the Labour Government, and rightly so. It has also seen drug-use figures fall. Some 80% of the prison intake was drug addicted or committed drug crimes, and that figure is now down to approximately 30% upon release, under the current programme. Does the Justice Secretary agree that that is a good thing?

Chris Grayling: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work being done in Doncaster. There is good work being done in many parts of the prison estate. The Doncaster model is slightly different from what we are looking to deliver across the whole of the justice system, but it is equally delivering reductions in reoffending and that is to be welcomed and supported. Anything we can do to bring down reoffending rates has to be the right thing to do.

Stewart Jackson: My right hon. Friend mentions the situation at Her Majesty’s prison in Peterborough. Is not the moral of the story there that non-state actors can have a very important role to play in driving down recidivism? Indeed, both Peterborough prison as a private prison—with male and female co-located—and the social impact bond in Peterborough were pioneered by the former Labour Government, and it is sad that Labour seems to have engineered a U-turn on what is, and was, a very good initiative.

Chris Grayling: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The sad thing is that a partnership of the private sector and the voluntary sector and the state has been proven to work in many cases. In Peterborough it is working really well. When the Labour Government passed the Offender Management Act in 2007, they talked extensively about the benefits to be gained from such a partnership. It is sad that they are now seeking to block such a partnership in other debates, and today they are using that as an excuse to try to block a measure that they themselves say they support. Frankly, they are all over the place.
	The other part of what we are looking to do involves the creation of a proper through-the-gate system. It is a key part of a wider programme to transform how we rehabilitate offenders. The providers that we will bring into the system will offer a resettlement service for all offenders in custody before their release of the kind that is being provided in Peterborough. It is important that we align the prison system and the geographic areas for release afterwards to make sure these reforms can be as geographically synchronised as possible. The changes we are making to our prison system to create a network of resettlement prisons will ensure that, where possible, the same offender manager will work with offenders in custody and continue their rehabilitation work in the community. I believe that can make a significant difference and can help reinforce the measures in this Bill.

Madeleine Moon: There are no prisons for women in Wales. All women offenders sentenced to a prison term serve their sentence outside Wales. How will that be managed
	if we are looking at offender managers working from prisons and back in the communities? The majority of offenders are men, and the probation service has a proven track record of working well with women. How will the Justice Secretary ensure that the private sector does not just look at offenders as male, but has programmes designed specifically for women returning to Wales?

Chris Grayling: Clearly, we will see the same level of support provided for women and men. The hon. Lady will, of course, have seen in the document we published recently on women offenders that our direction of travel is clearly towards creating smaller units close to where women live, so that we can maintain the family ties. We are trialling a new approach at HMP Styal in Cheshire, whereby we will have a hostel under the wing of the Prison Service, but outside a prison institution, with open conditions. We are looking to see whether we can deliver a different kind of model for the detention of women offenders that can make a genuine difference to them. Successive Governments have wanted to achieve support through the gate for short-sentence offenders, and we will seek to achieve it for men and women alike.

David Burrowes: The model of good practice on through-the-gate mentoring is the transitional support service, the longest-running and largest mentoring service. G4S, which delivers the service, does get a bad name, but when one looks at the results and the evidence from the evaluation, one finds that this is a very effective practice model which works alongside the public and voluntary and community sector organisations to deliver through-the-gate mentoring for men and women. That example needs to be followed in Wales—[Interruption.] This is all about women in Wales. [Interruption.] That is exactly what the transitional support service does.

Chris Grayling: Of course, new Labour believed in public and private and voluntary sector partnerships, but those days are long gone. Such partnerships can make a real difference. Large swathes of Wales have no prison capacity at all, and this Government are seeking to address that by building a major new prison in north Wales, so that many prisoners currently detained elsewhere can be detained in Wales.
	Successive Governments have wanted to achieve support through the gate for short-sentence offenders, and this Bill will finally deliver it. This Bill will provide rehabilitation to a group of offenders who desperately need it; it will give those working with offenders the freedom to innovate and tailor their interventions to what each individual needs; and it will stop the cycle of reoffending that creates so many victims in our communities. Its provisions should command the support of hon. Members from all parties. The fact that the Labour party wants to destroy it is just a further sign of how far that party has moved back to its political roots and away from a world of common sense. If the Opposition have their way, the losers will be victims of crime up and down this country and young people whose lives will be wasted.
	Let us finish by reminding Labour Members what they are voting for tonight. This Bill does not reform the probation service—it does not create a new structure for the probation service. It simply provides support for people who get short prison sentences for 12 months after they leave prison. The Labour party has always
	said that it supported that and has said so all year, but tonight, in this House, Labour Members are to vote against it. I think that that is disingenuous to say the least.

Sadiq Khan: I beg to move an amendment:
	“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords] because the implementation of the proposals in the Bill depends on the Government’s proposed restructuring of the Probation Service; believes that this proposed restructuring will see the abolition of local Probation Trusts, the fragmentation of supervision of offenders on the basis of their risk level and the commissioning of services direct from Whitehall; further believes that the Government has failed to provide any costings for their proposals; notes reports that suggest the Ministry of Justice’s own internal risk register warns that the Government’s proposals could result in a high risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance; and further declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that none of the Government’s proposals has been piloted nor independently evaluated, potentially resulting in an unnecessary risk to the public’s safety.”
	We support many of the Bill’s objectives, despite that awful speech by the Justice Secretary. The first part of the Bill, consisting of clause 1, was inserted by the other place because of its concerns about controversial plans to reform and restructure the probation service. Clause 1 requires any change to the structure of the probation service to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. We note that, so far, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) supports clause 1, but we will see as the evening progresses and as the votes transpire how he moves his position, and whether he decides to vote with conviction or do what the Conservative Whip asks him to do. I will return to clause 1 later.
	The second part of the Bill, clauses 2 to 13, deals with the supervision of offenders released from short custodial sentences. All offenders released from sentences of less than two years would be subject to at least 12 months’ mandatory supervision in the community. It has always been a ridiculous anomaly that short-sentence prisoners, the group with the highest rates of reoffending, are the ones left to their own devices when released from prison. As the Justice Secretary just read out, the previous Labour Government tried to address that with the custody plus proposals. I will come back to those later—accurately, rather than by rehashing history in the way attempted a short while ago. Nevertheless, extending supervision to those who serve less than 12 months in custody should play a part in reducing reoffending.
	The Bill would also put on a statutory footing the requirement to have regard to the special needs of female offenders when making supervision arrangements. We are grateful to Lord Woolf for his important contributions on that matter in the other place. For the avoidance of doubt, we also welcome the introduction of the new drug appointment requirements and the expansion of the categories of drugs that can be tested for. The third part of the Bill, clauses 14 to 18, would amend the community sentencing framework.
	As much as the Justice Secretary would like us to do so, however, we cannot read the Bill in isolation. It is a smokescreen for fundamental changes to the way in which probation works in England and Wales.
	The motivation that the Justice Secretary relies on in public is his frustration that reoffending rates are too high, which he says means that something bold and radical needs to be done. He is in serious danger, however, of doing something that, bold and radical as it is, might make matters worse and increase the risk to the public.
	We know that probation works, as those under supervision are less likely than those who are not to go on and commit more crimes. The MOJ’s figures for the most recent full year show that among those who received a sentence of between four and 10 years who were released and supervised by probation, 30.7% reoffended; among those who received a sentence of between 12 months and four years who were released and supervised by probation, 36.2% reoffended; and among those in custody for less than 12 months who were released and not supervised by probation at all, 58.5% reoffended. By the by, it is a shame that the Justice Secretary is not suggesting payment by results for the public probation service. However, I welcome the fact that he appears, at least on this particular aspect, to want to follow the evidence and to use it to inform his policy making. Offenders who receive probation support do better than those who do not. That must be why he wants to extend probation to those who receive a custodial sentence of less than 12 months. But why does he want completely to dismantle our probation service?
	We can all agree that too many people are stuck in a cycle of reoffending. Just over a week ago, on a visit to the Justice Secretary’s flagship Oakwood prison, I met one young man who had previously been in prison six times and who could not have been more than 25 years old. It is precisely that group of people whom we need to get to grips with. It is not only a waste of taxpayers’ money, although we know that on average it costs £40,000 a year to keep someone like him in prison. There is a cost to society, too, as crime is estimated to cost the country £12 billion a year as well as creating, as the Justice Secretary said, needless victims of crime, heartache and misery. It is also a waste of human potential for people to spend their time locked up behind bars when, if properly reformed, they could contribute more meaningfully to society. Nobody would disagree with the need to address the offending behaviour of those individuals, but we do disagree with dismantling probation.

Jim Cunningham: Is there not a competition among various Secretaries of State to see who can privatise the most? The Secretary of State is advocating a policy that was pursued the last time the Conservatives were in government, when the solution to all problems was either privatisation or banging people up.

Sadiq Khan: If the Justice Secretary was saying that he had evidence that privatising probation worked or that it would save money, he would have an argument. He is saying neither, which is why we suspect that this is all about ideology rather than the evidence about what works. Although we agree with the broad objectives of the Bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I can hear chuntering from the Lib Dem Whip, the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), which is quite distracting. I am not sure whether she is trying to persuade her
	hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham to vote with her, or to put me off my stride—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	She is certainly better than the Justice Secretary at trying to put me off my stride.
	Although we agree with the broad objectives of the Bill, there are some major areas of difference between us and the Government and some big questions remain unanswered. Those questions are so fundamental that they cast a shadow over the Bill and call into question whether its objectives can be implemented without taking a serious gamble with public safety as a result. The Bill has been brought forward against a backdrop of upheaval and change—change that is not informed by evidence or statistics, but driven by recklessness and ideology.

Steve Brine: rose—

Sadiq Khan: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before making progress.

Steve Brine: I am sorry to distract the shadow Secretary of State, but I want to ask him a question. We discussed this subject in an Opposition day debate recently, and we agree on the broad objectives of the Bill, as he says. So that I am clear, will he tell me whether, if he is Justice Secretary in 18 months’ time, he will repeal the Offender Management Act 2007, which paves the way for much of the Bill and for what I presume, all things being equal, will become the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2013 or 2014? Will he repeal both those pieces of legislation? Is that clear?

Sadiq Khan: The 2007 Act was permissive. It gave the Justice Secretary powers that could be used if probation trusts were failing. Probation trusts were supposed to commission services; I will come on to how the Act works in practice. As far as the Bill is concerned, if I were in a fit of pique, I would be an ideologue and do what my gut told me, but I look at the evidence on what works. That is what I will look at when I become Justice Secretary on 8 May 2015.

John McDonnell: For the record, it was made explicit in debates on the 2007 legislation that it would allow the flexibility to introduce the voluntary sector in particular, not the wholesale privatisation of the probation service.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend reminds me that there are examples of probation trusts around the country that work with the private and voluntary sectors, and with charities. What the 2007 legislation was not about was a control freak Justice Secretary deciding from his desk in Whitehall who runs probation in different parts of the country. That is why there is a reasoned amendment in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members. If the Justice Secretary has his way, in less than a year, there will be a system in place to deliver the measures in the Bill that is massively different from today’s. As the House will know, there is considerable alarm among experts, management, staff, the police, and MPs in all parts of the House at the proposed restructuring of the probation service.

Gareth Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has repeatedly said that the Opposition support the supervision of
	short-term prisoners; will he explain to the House how he intends to ensure that that happens within the existing probation structure, without undertaking any kind of reform?

Sadiq Khan: I will; I will come to that in my speech, if the hon. Gentleman gives me time, but as the Justice Secretary would know if he got out of his office, some probation trusts supervise short-term prisoners now, within their budgets, because they believe that it is very important to do so.
	On one side of the debate, there are at least three probation trust chairs warning the Justice Secretary to delay probation privatisation or risk deaths; the chief inspector of probation warning that the plans will lead to
	“an increased risk to the public”;
	The Economist magazine calling the Justice Secretary’s plans half-baked; and probation staff warning that the fragmentation of the service goes against everything that we know about what works in supervising offenders. The Ministry of Justice’s own risk register warns that there is an 80% risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance; with regard to dealing with offenders, that can only lead to higher risks to public safety. [Interruption.] The Justice Secretary is saying “No.” Will he publish his risk register?

Chris Grayling: Will the shadow Secretary of State remind the House how many times the previous Government published risk registers, which are, after all, only a management tool?

Sadiq Khan: Let’s make a promise: if the Justice Secretary publishes his risk register now, when I am Justice Secretary, should I do what he is trying to do —God forbid—I will publish the risk register. He crosses his arms, but he cannot deny that his risk register says that there will be an 80% risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance. That is playing hard and fast with public safety. He is not willing to publish his risk register.
	I have not finished listing those who are on the first side of the argument. I have mentioned the probation trust chairs, the chief inspector of probation, The Economist, probation staff and the Justice Secretary’s risk register. The former chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham, said that the Bill was “being rushed through”, and that “Many…questions remain unanswered”. That is not all. The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, has said:
	“I am afraid it is obvious that, because they are…in a hurry, the preparations that the Government have made for the introduction of this scale of change are very modest indeed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 653.]

David Burrowes: I want to understand the position. The right hon. Gentleman has at last accepted that there was an anomaly for 13 years under the previous Government. They failed to provide proper statutory supervision for offenders with shorter sentences. Is he saying that he will urge all hon. Members today to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading and to decline to give any empowerment to ensure such supervision,
	which he recognises is needed? He is playing politics and will be letting down offenders, victims and taxpayers tonight.

Sadiq Khan: One cannot will the ends without the means. It is nonsense to suggest that simply pulling a lever will make that happen. It will not happen. We tried to do it, and I will shortly come to our efforts to put in place custody plus.
	On the other side of the debate are a few loyal Back Benchers and the Justice Secretary who is purposely not bringing before Parliament his plans for restructuring probation, thereby avoiding proper scrutiny and debate, and is rushing ahead at breakneck speed in implementing these plans, not interested in whether there is any evidence that his plans will work, dismissing expert evidence and instead basing his decision to roll his plans out on his gut instinct—the same gut instinct that brought us the failing Work programme in his former role.

Guy Opperman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: One last time. I must make progress.

Guy Opperman: I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. He talks about breakneck speed, but does he recall that in May 2006, when the Labour Government were still planning to introduce custody plus and a large proportion of the measures that we see today, in the House of Lords the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Justice Minister, said:
	“We estimate that, in 2007–08, 49,400 offenders will be starting custody plus orders”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 May 2006; Vol. 681, c. 566]?
	Why does the right hon. Gentleman not now back a plan that has been in the offing for more than 10 years, which has finally been produced by this coalition Government?

Sadiq Khan: Because if done properly, it would cost £194 million a year. We could do it on the back of an envelope, as the Justice Secretary wants to do, but I do not want to do that. It is a risk to public safety.
	Let me remind the House that at the same time the Justice Secretary says that he wants those who receive less than 12 months’ custody to receive probation supervision. Rather than supporting probation, what are his plans for it? Those plans are: abolishing local probation trusts and instead commissioning services direct from his desk, in Whitehall, on behalf of local communities; splitting responsibility for offenders on the basis of their risk level, despite risk not being static in 25% of cases; handing responsibility for serious and violent criminals to G4S, Serco, Carillion, A4e and the like; imposing an untried and untested payment-by-results model on providers; and, as I said, all at breakneck speed, adding up to a half-baked, reckless reorganisation of probation, without any evidential base—a monumental gamble with public safety.
	Let us be frank. The Justice Secretary has wanted to keep all the major changes he is making to probation below the radar, purposely avoiding bringing those plans before Parliament. If not for the Opposition day
	debate, MPs would never have had the chance to debate them. He said in the Chamber 12 days ago that he was not afraid of debating his plans, but he left the Chamber almost immediately after his speech, not staying to hear any of contributions from worried and concerned MPs in all parts of the House. That is not debate in anyone’s book. Instead, it shows a disdainful arrogance towards Parliament and towards genuine concerns at his proposals. If he had stayed, he would have heard in the time-limited debate l8 MPs from all parts of the House express concern. More MPs wanted to speak, but there was insufficient time. Just three Members spoke in favour. I can see that he has done a better whipping operation today than he did 12 days ago. Many MPs, stakeholders, prison and probation staff and charities are labouring under the false impression that this is the privatisation of probation Bill. It is not. The Justice Secretary is trying to use the 2007 Act to do that.

Stewart Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sadiq Khan: I want to make some progress, then I will give way.
	The Bill does make specific mention of the probation service, and I pay tribute to those in the other place for their work in trying to get proper scrutiny of the Justice Secretary’s plans. Clause 1 says that no changes may be made to the probation service without the approval of both Houses. That was the result of a successful amendment tabled by Lord Ramsbotham in the other place, not of anything that the Government did. It has taken almost five months since the Bill’s Third Reading in the other place for us to have a Second Reading debate today. Could the reason for that delay be that the Justice Secretary was desperate to begin the tendering process by which privatisation could occur before this important clause could be debated, because he was afraid of Commons scrutiny?
	We understand why the Justice Secretary wants to get on with his plans and avoid proper scrutiny. Just two years ago, the Ministry of Justice—none of its then Ministers are now in position; all have been sacked—published a comprehensive competition strategy for probation services, and proposed
	“the commissioning of six new PbR pilot schemes to carefully develop and rigorously test PbR for reduced re-offending”.
	Note the phrases “pilot schemes” and “rigorously test PBR”. The Ministry of Justice knew that the Peterborough pilot, which was designed by Labour and began in 2010, was a very different beast altogether, and its results are not directly comparable with the Government’s probation plans.
	In March last year, the Ministry published a further paper, proposing
	“a stronger role for Probation Trusts as commissioners of probation services and a stronger emphasis on local partnership working”.
	Note the reference to “probation trusts as commissioners”, not abolition, and to “local partnership working”, not control freakery from Whitehall. I have got to honest: we agreed with that approach.

Chris Grayling: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, something like 3,000 serious, violent, sexual and similar crimes were committed by people who received sentences of less than 12 months and were released
	unsupervised last year. He talks about testing. Given that situation, how many years would he wait before he introduced a scheme that supervised those offenders?

Sadiq Khan: If the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to speak to the probation trusts, he would know that in Manchester, for example, the trust is already working with the voluntary sector, the private sector and charities to address those who receive sentences of less than 12 months. If he had spoken to those in Avon and Somerset, he would know that the probation trust is already doing that. If he had spoken to the South Yorkshire trust, he would know that it is already doing that. If he took the trouble to speak to them, rather than G4S and Serco, he would know what works and what does not work. Instead, he wants to give contracts to untried, untested private companies, with no experience in criminal justice. If I were the Justice Secretary, I would have consulted the probation trusts. What does he do? He does not wait for any evidence or trials. Forget testing or rigour; he cancels the pilots and does a complete somersault, hoping that no one will notice either his change of mind or the fact that it is being done without any evidence, taking huge risks with public safety and reoffending rates.
	Another important issue is how the plans will be resourced. A number of Back Benchers, reading the script, have asked about resources, and how we will we do this in the public sector and not use G4S and Serco to save money. As I have already said, extending supervision to those on short sentences is to be welcomed, but this cannot be taken as a resource-free commitment. An additional 50,000 offenders on top of the current 250,000 a year would need support and supervision. The impact assessment is of no help at all in shedding light on this issue. It says that
	“the cost will be dependent on the outcome of competition”.
	So, basically, the Government are asking for Parliament’s support, but will not say what the cost implications are of implementing the plans. Call me old-fashioned, but I would like to know how much it will cost before I decide to vote for it.
	That is important for two reasons. First, if it is the case that there is going to be a considerable additional resource demand for these plans, but the Government do not want to commit more money—they may indeed wish to save money—existing resources will have to be spread more thinly. So while the Justice Secretary refers to the 3,000 short-term offenders committing offences, that could increase exponentially, because medium and low-risk offenders will be supervised less well because of his plans to increase supervision without proper resources. There are implications for the quality of supervision, and it is important that Parliament debates this.
	Secondly, if the Government need to commit more resources, it is only right that Parliament should scrutinise those plans. Either way, the Justice Secretary must be honest with Parliament about the cost of the plans he wants us to vote for today. I find it hard to believe that the Ministry of Justice has not done any number crunching on those issues. Why is it not being made public?
	That is all the more pertinent given the excellent contribution my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) made in the Opposition day debate 12 days ago—I am not sure
	whether the Secretary of State was still in his place, but the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), was. My right hon. Friend pointed out that Labour had a similar scheme for extending supervision called custody plus, which a number of Back Benchers who have read their Whips’ briefing have referred to. He said, because he is an evidence-based politician:
	“Ten years ago, it would have cost £194 million a year”.
	That would have been for 50,000 offenders, the same figure the Government are proposing. My right hon. Friend went on to attack the lack of costings for the Justice Secretary’s similar plan—he will forgive me for embarrassing him—stating:
	“I can put a figure on it, but he cannot. All we are told is that it will be paid for by the savings generated by the competition for low and medium-risk offenders. Frankly, I just do not believe it. Either that supervision will be inadequate or the existing provision will be weakened and reduced in quality.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 1003.]
	The Justice Secretary, who is still here for a change, has an opportunity today to respond to that stinging criticism from a respected and senior Member of this House with considerable experience in this area, because so far he has failed to do so. I know that he has a supper to go to, but he still has some time to respond to that point before he leaves.
	The Justice Secretary’s incompetence is compounded by his calculations on other matters. According to the MOJ’s impact assessment, extending supervision to prisoners serving less than 12 months will lead to around 13,000 offenders being recalled or committed to custody, increasing the number of prison places needed by around 600, at a cost of £16 million. Where will that £16 million and those additional 600 places come from? Last Friday we were told that there were only 658 prison places left in England and Wales, and next March he will close a further four prisons, with the loss of a further 1,400 places. That is from the Government who cancelled our prison building programme. He will forgive me if we lack confidence in his plans for probation.

Stewart Jackson: rose—

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman has been very patient, so I will give way.

Stewart Jackson: The right hon. Gentleman will have to do a little better than this speech if he wants to be Labour’s candidate for Mayor of London, because he does not have much of a tiger in his tank—that is after he has been Secretary of State for Justice, obviously. I admire his brass neck and chutzpah on this issue, given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said, six years have passed to right this anomaly, three of which were under his Government. May I press him again very succinctly to answer this question: if the circumstances have changed and independent evidence shows that the Government’s proposals are working, would he still repeal the Act in an incoming Labour Government?

Sadiq Khan: Well, I lost the trail of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention after the third minute. His party has been in government for three and a half years. It has had three and a half years to change the way probation trusts are measured. According to his measurement,
	every trust is either good or excellent. What is his policy solution? It is to abolish them. Call me old-fashioned, but that seems absurd, bearing in mind the evidence. Why not speak to the probation trusts and say, “Listen, we want to try to supervise those people who are not currently receiving supervision, so are you going to consider doing that?”, rather than taking forward back-of-the-envelope policies that all the evidence suggests will not work.

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman’s policy appears to be to ask the probation trusts whether they would consider supervising people sentenced to less than 12 months. Will he say very clearly before the House whether or not, if this country is unlucky enough to have a Labour Government after the next election, he will commit to providing supervision for those prisoners sentenced to less than 12 months?

Sadiq Khan: If the Justice Secretary has his way, within the course of 12 months those who receive a sentence of less than 12 months will be supervised and we will have to wait and keep our fingers crossed that there will be no risk to public safety. If there is no such risk and the Justice Secretary finally oversees a rehabilitation revolution, of course we will not stop that supervision—that would be ridiculous. The Justice Secretary’s problem is that he cannot tell us how much it will cost, how much reoffending will go down by, or how many fewer crimes will be committed. That is the big flaw in his plan. It is not evidence-based. It has been worked out on the back of an envelope. The last time he tried to do that was the Work programme, which was not a huge success.

Kate Green: Of course, one of the problems is that whoever undertakes the supervision activity will have to meet the requirements imposed by a sentencing court, which will be predetermined and come with an element of unbreakable cost. Is it not, therefore, something of a distortion to suggest that these are payment-by-results contracts when a substantial proportion of the cost will, in effect, be determined by the sentence passed by the court? Surely the Justice Secretary could tell us now what costing he has made of that.

Sadiq Khan: My hon. Friend has more optimism in the Justice Secretary’s competence than I have. The Social Market Foundation showed recently that it is possible for private companies to still make a profit based on the fee for service, without relying on the PBR element. The Justice Secretary has not even worked out what percentage will be PBR. Will it be 5%, 7%, 10% or 15%? He has no idea. He is the most incompetent Justice Secretary in history.
	While I am on the subject of extending supervision, I should say that I, unlike the Justice Secretary, have met probation trusts and they have said that they would be up for taking on those on sentences of less than 12 months if only the Government would let them. They were never asked to do so by this Justice Secretary. Instead, he would rather trust G4S, Serco and the like. In fact, some probation trusts already work with the most prolific offenders in this group, even though they do not get the money to do so. They just see it as the right thing to do.
	Instead of abolishing probation trusts, why will not the Government give them the chance to prove their mettle with those on short sentences? Why has the Justice Secretary decided that the existing local structures, which have a proven track record in reducing reoffending, are to be ignored in favour of organisations with no track record in this area? Why have probation trusts been barred from bidding for the contracts to supervise low and medium-risk offenders?
	Before I conclude, I need to address the issue of payment by results. The Justice Secretary is pretty good at briefing journalists that his reform of probation will mean that private companies will be paid only if they rehabilitate offenders. Who would not be in favour of a system that pays private companies only by result? However, the Justice Secretary does not brief journalists with the small print. We have absolutely no idea what percentage of the contract payment will be dependent on results—and neither does the Justice Secretary.
	I want the House to be clear about what we do and do not support. We support attempts to reduce reoffending. We support extending supervision to those in custody for less than 12 months. We support attempts at through-the-gate support for those leaving prison. We will only support policies that are grounded in evidence of what works and that will not put the public at risk. We cannot afford to undermine public confidence in our criminal justice system with ideological leaps in the dark that could risk public safety.
	It is mendacious of the Justice Secretary to attack those who do not subscribe to his particular approach as being in favour of the status quo. The “you’re either with me or against me” approach does not wash. We do not subscribe to the Justice Secretary being judge and jury about what works without waiting for any evidence. We do not support him ignoring experts whose knowledge in this area is at a level he will never be able to match. Placing tabloid headlines ahead of what really works is a dangerous game.
	If our reasoned amendment fails, we will table amendments in Committee and on Report to try to address the very serious concerns of experts in the field. We believe it is possible to work with the public, private and voluntary sectors, and that it is possible to reduce offending without taking a risk with public safety.

Alan Beith: There should be no disagreement about the key objectives and features of the Bill in respect of through-the-gate supervision. However, there is plenty of scope for disagreement and concern over the mechanisms that the Government are setting up, the timings and the unlimited nature of the Bill. That is a consequence of the fact that they have readily available legislation upon which to build this structure, which was passed by the previous Government.
	The Justice Committee will tomorrow take further evidence from organisations and individuals with expertise in this field because it is considering the implications of the probation changes. Further evidence sessions are planned. I do not want to prejudge the Committee’s conclusions. Several members of the Committee are present for this debate. However, I will convey to the House some of the concerns that the Committee has expressed on previous occasions that are relevant to the Bill.

Roger Williams: rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: rose—

Alan Beith: I give way first to my hon. Friend.

Roger Williams: When my right hon. Friend takes evidence, will he focus on rural issues, because dividing the service between high risk cases and medium and low risk cases might make it uneconomic to deliver because the number of offenders in rural areas is so low?

Alan Beith: My hon. Friend would be surprised if I did not take rural issues into account, given that I represent the most sparsely populated areas of England.
	I give way to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is a member of my Select Committee.

Jeremy Corbyn: I look forward to the evidence session tomorrow morning. Would it not be far better if the Secretary of State delayed further consideration of this proposal until after our Committee has examined the issue and produced a proper report on it so that there is an evidence base for the legislation?

Alan Beith: It is our intention to report quickly on these aspects of the probation changes. There has been a considerable delay since the Bill completed its passage through the Lords, as was referred to by the shadow Secretary of State. Although the process for implementing the Government’s changes is fairly rapid, the consideration of the Bill has been relatively leisurely by parliamentary standards. It is my intention that the Select Committee will still influence the shape of what emerges.
	When the Justice Committee reported on the probation service in 2011, we said that a more seamless, through-the-gate approach to dealing with offenders was vital and that less of a probation officer’s time should be wasted on bureaucratic processes that do not involve direct engagement with offenders. We saw potential in payment by results, but some dangers as well.
	We also wanted something that the Government do not intend to give us, which is local commissioning. That would enable decisions about what is provided to be taken in the context of local circumstances so that we no longer have the absurd position whereby prison is a nationally provided free good, in that it does not engage local authorities through the provision of any expenditure. It is a national expenditure, whereas almost all other kinds of provision have to be financed and funded locally.
	The Justice Committee reported earlier this year on women offenders. I welcome clause 11, which relates to the concern expressed in our report that the system was designed to meet the needs of male offenders and must make appropriate provision for women offenders. The argument is not that women who commit criminal offences are less guilty than men who commit criminal offences, but that the circumstances that generate the offences committed by women and the means by which women can be guided towards not committing further offences are often different. That is another area in which we have given advice that is relevant to the Bill.
	There are some important questions about the Bill and the structure of the probation service that will be necessary to support it that must be considered. The
	first is whether there is a market out there. Are there enough potential providers that could take on the contracts and that could engage, as is necessary, with the wide range of charities, voluntary organisations and other bodies in which there is expertise?
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I heard a reference from the Labour Benches to G4S and Serco, and the contracts of both those companies, which were brought about under the previous Government, are now the subject of serious fraud inquiries. One implication of that is that a number of companies may effectively be excluded from the bidding process. We must await the outcome of the inquiries as we cannot reach conclusions at this stage, but even were the process still going on, it would exclude at least two major companies working in that field.

Mike Wood: In view of those allegations, does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to withdraw or suspend those companies from the bidding process until the matters are resolved? So far he has refused to do that.

Alan Beith: There are complex legal reasons that I will not try and go into now, but I cannot imagine that this House would want a company that is currently the subject of a serious criminal investigation to be awarded a criminal justice contract. Both companies, of course, have contracts in criminal justice in other areas of activity or other parts of government, and they have perfectly satisfactory ratings on some of those. It is a difficult issue to deal with.

John McDonnell: As the right hon. Gentleman said, we should be clear about satisfactory ratings. He should refer to the press this morning because G4S has been referred for prosecution as a result of the forgery of documents that allowed the deportation of a prisoner.

Alan Beith: I think I have made myself clear about what view the House would take if a company that was the subject of a serious fraud inquiry were to be awarded a bid in those circumstances. I do not think Ministers are in any doubt on that point.
	My point about the market was generally much wider because we must take proper account of whether the Department has the capacity to manage that market. Indeed, it has been said on at least one occasion that the Department wants to draw new entrants into the market and cultivate new capacity, but has it got the capacity to do that? We must consider that important question.
	On finance and timing, the Government have not made publicly available any assessment of the financial risk of not delivering the programme to the agreed time scale, quality or cost. The risk register apparently suggests there is a 51% to 80% risk that the reforms will fail to deliver the promised scale of savings.

Sadiq Khan: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask to see the risk register from the Ministry of Justice, bearing in mind the important report he is preparing?

Alan Beith: We may do, but I expect to get the same answer as we would have got from the previous Government.

Sadiq Khan: rose—

Alan Beith: I think the right hon. Gentleman has made his point and I have given my response. The Ministry of Justice has not provided an indication of how much it would additionally need to save to afford the cost of implementing the proposals, or said how quickly those savings would be realised. That puts my Committee in a difficult position when assessing the viability of the proposals.
	There are also difficulties of risk management. The public probation service will have to assure itself about the risk management of up to 200,000 offenders for whom it has no direct responsibility, and we will need to ask many questions about how information will be passed between the public probation service, the police, and private sector providers. At the moment, transfer of information is relatively easy, but under the proposed arrangements it will become more complex and difficult. I hope the Minister will say something about that. That also affects other areas. I had a discussion with a victim liaison officer who is concerned about how far information of the kind she is able to get now will flow when reassuring victims about restrictions being placed on an offender, and whether that information will come so readily through the system the Government propose.
	There are key confidence issues about how the proposals can be made to work. There is a confidence issue for the police on sharing intelligence. If police officers feel inhibited about sharing intelligence with the provider of these vital services, the effectiveness of the whole process will be impaired. There is a confidence issue for magistrates when considering how they can rely on a community sentence—a significant part of the Bill is on community sentences. We want magistrates to be able to pass community sentences confident in the knowledge that they will be carried out effectively. There is a confidence issue for those who deal with victims and, currently, for probation office staff, who are uncertain as to where they will end up. If they take no definite action to locate themselves in the new system, will they finish up in the public probation service or the private sector? Which way should they go if they want the opportunity to exercise their skills?

Guy Opperman: I echo the concerns the Chairman of the Justice Committee outlines and accept their validity, but the idea that there is no example of partnership between charitable organisations and the police is surely negated by the St Giles Trust—the Committee has looked at the trust in great detail. The trust is a charitable sector organisation that works throughout people’s time in prison and outside in partnership with the prison, probation and all other services. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the St Giles Trust is a good example of how things can be done?

Alan Beith: There are plenty of good examples—my Committee has looked at a number of them—but no one should start from the presumption that the existing system is the only way of managing prolific and frequent offenders. On the contrary, the reoffending figures should tell us that we must do something differently. We must harness the talents that exist in the charity and voluntary sectors, which may also exist in the private sector.

Andrew McDonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Beith: No, I will conclude because many hon. Members wish to speak.
	Elements of the Bill will provide the opportunity to realise the Justice Committee’s vision of how we can reduce crime through more effective use of taxpayers’ money. Currently, we waste taxpayers’ money in not dealing effectively with reoffending. That must change. However, there are significant risks in the pace at which the Government intend to implement the programme. We must ask questions about that, and my Committee will do so.

John Healey: Despite what the Justice Secretary tried to argue at the beginning of his speech, the Bill is part of a wider programme that changes probation services as well as how the offenders with which they deal are handled. As such, it is important to understand the background of the Bill in order to understand its intent, the provisions and the wider programme.
	To do that, it is necessary to look at the policy routes of the consultation reports that precede the Bill. The coalition’s first criminal justice consultation—“Breaking the Cycle”—was in December 2010. It promised to open up probation services to the market. The second report, of July 2011, proposed six new pilots of a payment-by-results method and at the same time pledged not a comprehensive rehabilitation strategy for offenders, nor a comprehensive reoffending rates reduction strategy, but a
	“a comprehensive competition strategy for…probation services”.
	There is an obsession with the market, competition and privatisation. This is not the means to an end; it is the end. It is the purpose of the Justice Secretary’s programme—that and perhaps burnishing his credentials with the wilder right-wing of the Conservative party for the future.
	If the policy end was to reduce reoffending rates for short-term prisoners, the means are in place—probation trusts, which have been responsible for overseeing falling reoffending rates for those they have supervised for 13 years.

Rehman Chishti: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I will finish my point and then give way.
	If the end or purpose of the policy was better value for taxpayers without compromising professional standards or public safety, the means are in place with probation trusts, which have made savings of around 20% over the past five years and helped to reduce crime rates and maintain protection for the public.

Jeremy Wright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I will give way to the Minister and then to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti).

Jeremy Wright: I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. He was a member of the Government who passed the Offender Management Act 2007. If, as is his contention, the previous Government believed that probation trusts could do all those things themselves, why did the Act allow for competition? Why did it not prescribe that all probation work should always be done by probation trusts?

John Healey: The Minister was in the Chamber for the Opposition day debate last week and will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who was the Minister responsible for the 2007 Act. In July 2007, he mentioned
	“trusts remaining public-sector based and delivering services at a local level”.—[Official Report, 18 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 354.]
	Essentially, the 2007 Act was not about abolishing local probation trusts, nor about trying to commission services from the centre from a desk in Whitehall; it was about using local partnerships and local professional expertise to secure the best mix of support that offenders needed and that the public required to keep them safe and protected from harm.

Rehman Chishti: I infer that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with rehabilitation being the end product. A key element of the Bill on rehabilitation and reoffending is clauses 12 and 13. Compulsory drug testing for class B drugs expands existing provisions, and clause 13 introduces compulsory attendance at appointments on licence for drug treatment and testing, which did not exist before. The key part is helping people who need help. The ones who are addicted to drugs are the ones who continue to go in and out of the criminal system. Clauses 12 and 13 deal with rehabilitation on that basis, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will at least agree with me that those clauses are the right way forward.

John Healey: There are some useful provisions in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has said that the Opposition do not object to some of the Bill. Additional requirements as part of supervision orders are sensible. Extending the supervision requirement to those who are released from custody after short-term sentences is sensible. My argument is that the legislation is part of a wider programme, the policy purpose of which lacks evidence and justification, but not the ideology that drives the Justice Secretary. That purpose—that end—is the privatisation of our probation services. It is not about the means to a better probation service or better protection for the public.
	Let me develop my argument. I have mentioned the first and second coalition consultation reports. To be fair, the third report—“Punishment and Reform: Effective Probation Services”—which was published in March 2012, restated the intent to open up the market for the supervision of low-risk offenders. However, it also proposed a stronger role for probation trusts and a stronger emphasis on partnership working. The report states:
	“We intend that there will be a stronger role for public sector Probation Trusts as commissioners of competed probation services…We will devolve to Probation Trusts the budget for community offender services”.
	At that time, the Government said:
	“Trusts are best placed to work with courts and with local partners to design and commission services jointly…We will
	support the joint commissioning of services for offenders between probation and key partners such as local authorities, health and the police.”

Andrew McDonald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current proposals run the risk of dispensing with excellent services in the not-for-profit sector, which Government Members say they want to preserve? Will the proposals not leave that door open, because such charitable organisations do not have the critical mass to enable them to bid for the contracts or withstand a payment-by-results mechanism?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. One of the real worries about this so-called reform programme is that it borrows from the Work programme, which the Justice Secretary introduced when he was Minister of State for Employment. Frankly, many of the failures, flaws and potential fraud in the Work programme could be replicated in our probation service.
	Returning to probation trusts, I quoted from the March 2012 consultation report. What has changed since then? The Justice Secretary has changed. He has stopped the pilots; he has added medium-risk offenders who have served a custodial sentence, and those on community sentences and suspended sentences, to the list of offenders who will be handed over to the private sector; and he has issued the invitation to contract for £450 million of services before the Bill has even had its Second reading in this House. There has been no testing, no costing, no evidence to support such sweeping changes and no backing from any serious professional probation voices.
	Clause 1 was inserted by the Lords as a vote of no confidence in the case that the Justice Secretary has been making. That was not a party political move, as it was led by Cross Benchers and a former chief inspector of prisons. Clause 1 was introduced and approved because there are still too many doubts about the Bill and the programme of privatisation—doubts about the viability, accountability, affordability and safety of services under a new, largely privatised system. How much will it cost? How much will it save? How will it be more effective? How will it reduce reoffending? How great will the risk be in putting serious offenders in the hands of private companies? How much money will be offered up front? How much will be held back and paid via payment by results? How will the repeated failures of the Work programme be avoided? How will the fiasco and fraud we have seen before be avoided in the Ministry of Justice’s management of contracts?
	To justify the proposed legislation, the Justice Secretary has to address those concerns, and he has not. He has to be able to demonstrate that his plans are better than building on what is already in place. He cannot do that because all 35 probation trusts in England and Wales have been independently judged either good or excellent. All 35 probation trusts are hitting all the targets they have been set. Reoffending rates for those under their supervision have been falling every year for more than a decade. Imagine the credit the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government would take if all local authority children’s services were judged good or excellent. Imagine the purring pleasure of the Secretary of State for Education if all schools were judged good or excellent. Imagine the huge relief of the Secretary of State for Health if all hospitals were judged good or
	excellent. No other part of the public sector performs so consistently, and to such a high professional standard, as the probation service.

Paul Maynard: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he suggesting that none of the 35 probation trusts should apply for mutual status, which would allow them to carry on their important work? Is he advising against that?

John Healey: That is a red herring. Unbelievably, probation trusts are prevented from putting forward proposals to bid for contracts to do the job they have proved they can do so well. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes across to south Yorkshire and looks at our probation trust, which is one of the best-performing trusts in the country. In the past five years, it has been top-ranked almost every year in reducing reoffending.

Sadiq Khan: I have been to south Yorkshire and, with the excellent police and crime commissioner, visited various projects that are examples of the probation trust competing with local charities to get the best possible project to rehabilitate offenders. What does my right hon. Friend think the probation trust would say if it was told, “We can guarantee seven to 10 years of funding, with a three-year contract extension, if you are allowed to bid for this contract”? What does he think its response would be if it was allowed to bid for the contract that the Government will allow G4S, Serco and Uncle Tom Cobley to bid for?

John Healey: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Probation trusts want to do the work they already do, including with offenders who serve custodial sentences of less than 12 months. They require all their officers to be qualified to work with medium-risk offenders—the group the Government want to put out to the private sector—which is one reason why the results for reduction in reoffending have been so good in the past five years. I see no reason why probation trusts should not be able to bid to provide the service my right hon. Friend talked about. Ministers say, with a sweep of the hand, “They cannot possibly deal with the uncertainty of payment by results,” but that is not the case.

Jeremy Wright: rose—

John Healey: Let us hear from the Minister why probation trusts should not be allowed to bid under their own terms for the work he wants to put out to contract.

Jeremy Wright: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the answer is. A probation trust, as a wholly public body, cannot compete under a payment-by-results system, because that would put public money at risk. Of course he understands that.

John Healey: That is absolute nonsense. Public bodies, like local authorities, have reserves to deal with uncertainties. Why does the Minister not take a look at the legislation passed by his Government on local authority funding, which is based increasingly on business rates and contains
	an element of risk? Good, prudent public authorities can manage those risks, and there is no reason why probation trusts should not be able to bid for this work and do it as well as they do the work with the offenders they are already responsible for supervising.

Kate Green: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what the Minister has just said is Kafkaesque? The Minister is saying that he would rather contract out, with risk, to unproven private companies than retain in-house quality services without risk.

John Healey: To which I might add that the probation trusts have a proven track record—certainly in south Yorkshire—of dealing with the group the Minister is rightly most concerned about: offenders who have served less than 12 months in custody. That work is already done in south Yorkshire by the probation trust, with multi-agency teams including the police, drug workers and housing officers. The Justice Secretary’s plans will split up those cases and break the relationships on which such excellent work is dependent and currently undertaken.

Sadiq Khan: I am terribly sorry to intervene again. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concept of justice reinvestment? Manchester probation trust, for example, has excellent intensive alternatives to custody, and rather than being used to pay dividends to shareholders, the savings that are made are reinvested in other schemes that reduce reoffending even more. This is an example of a win-win situation, with public sector experts reducing reoffending and the money saved going to projects that reduce reoffending even more.

John Healey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of that. He is an excellent shadow Justice Secretary, and I am interested to hear what he says about Greater Manchester. I suspect that the point is the same with regard to south Yorkshire: the Government’s proposed changes are all about taking on the extra work that is already being done effectively. Many of the 35 probation trusts are now saying, “Give us the challenge and the opportunity to do this extra work and we will do it without the extra cost.” I ask the Minister: why destroy this local probation service, which the combination of privatisation and the Bill will do? Why dismantle the working relationships in place with partner agencies? Why privatise out of existence the people with the proven expertise and dedication to help the short-sentence offenders, whom he, in the Bill, rightly wants to support? Why run the terrible risk to the safety of the public with these changes?
	The risk that Ministers talk about does not relate simply to the original crime committed. With these offenders, the risk changes, often rapidly and in response to personal circumstances—their stopping taking medication, breaking up with a partner, or suddenly falling into a circle of old friends and bad habits. Last year, one in four offenders moved, one way or the other, between the high and medium-risk categories. They are exactly the group that the Government want to see moving between the public and the private sectors—between the probation service and the contracted services. These individuals are likely to yo-yo between agencies, which will result in extra cost, paperwork and risk. The chief inspector of probation said:
	“Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector providers will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public.”
	In other words, there will be increased risk as a direct result of the Bill.
	I turn briefly to parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, I broadly support some of the provisions in part 2, including the ones that seek to reduce the reoffending rate among those who serve less than 12 months in custody, for whom the probation trusts do not have supervisory responsibility at the moment. That reoffending rate is around 60%. It is too high and the Government are right to want to tackle it, but this could have consequences for a rising prison population. First, the courts might well choose to make more use of short custodial sentences with this extra 12 months’ supervision added by the Bill. Secondly, if the new licence conditions available under the Bill are too tight, more people might breach them and be sent back to custody. The Justice Secretary has not, and cannot, answer such concerns—as he cannot the other concerns—because he will not test his plans in practice.
	Finally, I turn to the amendment of the definition of “responsible officer” in part 3. It is being made so that the staff of private companies or charities can do the job that probation officers currently do. I wish to put on the record the words of a probation officer from Rotherham who can describe more forcefully and eloquently than I can how complex and tough this work is—it does not simply comprise a set of tick-box tasks. I received an e-mail late last night from this probation officer explaining that they and their colleagues averaged up to 60 cases in their case load. Typically, one third of their clients will be in custody, half a dozen or so will be high-risk and the others will be deemed low or medium-risk—exactly the group Ministers want to transfer to private contractors. They wrote:
	“The job is one of constant juggling demands brought about by working with individuals who lead often chaotic lives. IT systems regularly freeze or crash… Another key service we provide is detailed reports to the Courts and Parole Board to aid sentencing and release considerations.”
	I have not heard a word about such considerations from the Justice Secretary. They continued:
	“Staff routinely work through their lunch breaks to ensure that work is completed in a timely manner and to exacting professional standards. Staff are known to work late”
	and
	“come in at weekends on a regular basis. This is true dedication and professionalism.”
	The probation officer described a recent case:
	“I arrive at the office at 8.00 completing administrative tasks. I have arranged to see my first case at 8.30 so as not to impact on the individuals work commitments. 9.30 I interview a person for a Court Report. I have not been supplied with the details of the offence by the crown Prosecution Service despite numerous attempts. I contact the individual’s solicitor who because they have respect and trust in the publicly run probation service sends me a fax copy of the documents. The individual…is distressed”
	and
	“discloses that they have a…plan to end their life… The pressing matter is to stabilise this person. I contact my colleagues in the Criminal Justice mental health liaison team. They arrange to see the person immediately after my interview with them. I contact a housing organisation with expertise in debt issues. They establish phone contact with that person later on in the day and arrange to
	see them the following day. My role is not just about undertaking the bare minimum but trying to assist people from the first point of contact regain control over their lives. In this case the individual was not classed as being a client of our service as they were awaiting sentence.”
	This probation officer highlighted one other case concerning exactly the category of offender who will be put in the hands of private companies under the contracting and privatisation provisions:
	“In another case the individual is being supervised for an offence of driving whilst disqualified…for drunk driving. He is assessed as presenting a low medium risk of harm, as there have been previous concerns relating to domestic abuse. In one incident he returned home intoxicated by alcohol and proceed to put his steel toe cap boots on and kick the family dogs to death in front of his young children. I become increasingly concerned about his behaviour. He informs me that he has missed an appointment with me because he had to take his 4 year old son”
	to hospital
	“with a broken collar bone”
	that he said was the result of an accident. The probation officer had seen the “over-chastisement” of the child when the offender had come to the office the previous week. They continue:
	“I share my concerns with social services. I begin to receive regular incident bulletins from the police of incidents they have been called to but no evidence of violence used. I assess his risk to be high. Eventually after his partner receives treatment for 3rd degree burns to her back, which are explained as accidental. Social services intervene. During this process I have been undertaking work behind the scenes to promote the safety of the child and partner”
	while also
	“undertaking work…with the client to challenge his behaviour and attitudes to alcohol.”
	Probation officers deal with people who are often chaotic, volatile and vulnerable, and whose lives are constantly shifting; and these probation officers constantly have to juggle their priorities. Private companies will not have close relations with, or the confidence of, other agencies. Their staff will not go that extra mile, but will be under pressure to do the bare minimum.

Gareth Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I want to finish on this point, because other Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman could have intervened earlier, but he did not.
	At the end of his speech, the Justice Secretary talked about common sense. Common sense says: pilot these changes, pilot the provisions in the Bill and pull the proposed privatisation programme. To do otherwise would be totally unjustified; it would run a reckless risk with the lives of vulnerable offenders to whom we owe a duty of supervision, and a reckless risk with the safety of the public.

Gareth Johnson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey).
	As a practising solicitor, I accept that a very good relationship exists between the probation service and defence solicitors, for example—I have been privy to that on many occasions—but it would be wrong to suggest that a very good relationship does not also exist between defence solicitors and private companies, such
	as Serco, which often run the jailing operations within our magistrates courts. I submit that, yes, there is a very good relationship between the probation service and other organisations, but there is no reason on God’s earth why there cannot also be a very good relationship between private companies and other organisations.
	I want to move on to the meat of the debate. The current system of tackling reoffending is not working, and we all need to accept that it requires fundamental change. The reforms represent one of the most important and effective developments in the drive to reduce reoffending that we have seen in this country. It has been fundamentally wrong to leave those on short-term sentences without support for so long, and I am delighted that we will see changes in that area. For years, people have claimed that short terms of imprisonment do not work, and they have held up reoffending rates as proof of that assertion. The reality, however, is that short terms of imprisonment can work, but they are less effective if there is no support for the prisoner on release.
	The probation service does some fantastic work. I have worked with it on many occasions and observed at first hand its dedication to the job. Its members work particularly hard to try to rehabilitate offenders, whom they refer to as clients. They do all that they can to ensure that those individuals are rehabilitated back into society. That does not mean, however, that they are the only people who can help to reduce offending, and it is right that we are going to open up this work to others, bring in other expertise and allow other people to assist in the battle against reoffending.

Julian Sturdy: I pay tribute to the probation service in my patch, in York and North Yorkshire. Is it not right to ensure that the expertise and skills in the existing probation service are fed into and used in any new system that we put in place?

Gareth Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) mentioned the fact that charities were already working hard to help to reduce reoffending. That illustrates the kind of excellent work that is being done by others working with probation officers. No one is trying to remove probation officers from the job of helping offenders. We are trying to enhance the present system to ensure that more people benefit and get the support that they need.

Sadiq Khan: At the moment, the local probation trusts set up the contracts with the charities. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, as a consequence of the Government’s plans, it will be the Justice Secretary in Whitehall letting those contracts? The evidence from the Work programme is that big companies get the contracts, rather than the small ones that are doing such a great job locally.

Gareth Johnson: Central Government are trying to help probation officers to create mutuals. They are working with the Cabinet Office to ensure that they can bid for the contracts, so that they can continue to provide the assistance that they now give. What is
	missing from the Opposition’s argument is the fact that the changes will enable us to help 50,000 more people. Surely, we should all be proud of that.

Kate Green: The Greater Manchester probation trust has been highly innovative in developing programmes with the private and voluntary sectors, and it has developed a successful programme called Achieve, which involves getting offenders back into employment. It has scored much higher outcomes than the Work programme. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the trust, having prepared to take that programme forward and to bid for one of the new contracts in a mutual, co-operative structure, was told that it would not be allowed to do so?

Gareth Johnson: It is above my pay grade to give information on why a probation trust has been refused a contract. I find it heartening, however, that so many of the examples given by Opposition Members involve charities and other organisations outside the probation service working successfully with offenders. I welcome the fact that the Bill will roll out that programme to ensure that more people get that kind of assistance.

Bob Stewart: Is it not true that whoever works with offenders, whether they are from a private company or a trust, will have to be qualified and prove that they can do the job?

Gareth Johnson: It is highly unlikely that the Ministry of Justice would give any kind of contract to an organisation that it did not regard as fit and proper to provide those services.
	I repeat that charities and private sector organisations are already involved with administering some unpaid work requirements and drug treatment orders. This can, and often does, work extremely well, and we should certainly not turn our back on it. I fear, however, that the genuine help that charities and private organisations can provide will not be made available if the instinctive rejection of the private sector by some Members results in the Bill being voted down. Some Members oppose the Bill simply because they do not want the private sector to become involved in state affairs, regardless of whether that would reduce crime.
	Let us not lose sight of the central argument: the public are screaming out for less crime. I believe that the Bill will achieve that. It matters not to a burglary victim whether the perpetrator is helped to stop offending by an organisation in the private sector, the charity sector or the public sector. What matters to that victim of crime is that there should be less crime, and that they will not be the victim of further offending.

Mike Wood: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the public are crying out for a reduction in crime. Will he tell us by how much serious crime has been reduced in the past 20 years?

Gareth Johnson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, since this Government took over, we have seen a reduction in crime of some 10%. We should be proud of that. We have achieved that through Government initiatives as well as through initiatives involving the police and, yes, the probation service, but there is so much more that could be done, particularly for those serving short sentences.
	Prisoners who serve sentences of under 12 months are the most likely ones to reoffend and push up the crime rates, and we must use that knowledge to ensure that we reduce crime by supporting those people. The Bill will help that to happen.
	The probation service is good at what it does, but it does not have a monopoly on wisdom in tackling reoffending. We have heard some rash statements today to the effect that the changes will jeopardise the safety of the public and put them at risk, but it is the current system that puts the public at risk, not our reforms. Under the Bill, the causes of lower-level and more serious offending will be tackled for the first time. Tackling the causes of crime will lead to the success of the measures.
	It makes complete sense to give private providers the opportunity to help to reduce reoffending and, if they succeed, to reward them financially. It makes sense to ask the taxpayer to pay for what works, rather than for what does not. Payment by results is hardly a new concept. Tendering out has taken place right across the public sector for years, and there is no evidence to suggest that it has not worked in the criminal justice system. I see no reason why the tendering out of these services should not be a success.
	The Opposition have said that they support the supervision of short-term offenders, but they also say that they do not support fundamental reform of the probation service. I cannot see how those two statements can be reconciled. How can we help 50,000 new offenders simply by asking the probation trusts to take on a few more clients? That simply would not work. The Opposition’s stance of supporting extra help for many prisoners without making changes to the system simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
	The changes will help some of those who are in the greatest need of help—the perpetual reoffenders who appear before the courts again and again. I am not suggesting that it will be easy for any contractor to help those people, but it is absolutely right that they should try. For years, we have worked on the assumption that we could lock someone up for a short period of time and expect that, miraculously, on release, they would not reoffend. We now know, of course, that that theory was completely misplaced, so if we want to tackle reoffending rates, these reforms are not only overdue, but vital.
	I maintain that this Bill represents one of the most significant and important provisions that the Government have put forward since I became a Member of Parliament, so I sincerely hope that it will receive its Second Reading.

Paul Goggins: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). I am sure he will be pleased that he seemed to evoke a range of responses from different parts of the House.
	Whether the Justice Secretary likes it or not, we are debating two issues here this evening. First, there is, of course, the Bill itself, whose central aim would, I think, be broadly welcome, although a number of important questions have been raised that the Minister will need to address in his response; I am sure he will. The second issue is the fundamental change to the probation service
	that Justice Ministers are bringing about. It is all very well for the Justice Secretary to say that all this is being done under legislation brought in by the previous Government. He cannot deny that some elements of what he proposes for the probation service relate directly to this legislation, not least to the extension of supervision, which is the principal aim of the Bill.
	The link between the two issues has been made explicit in two ways—first, by the amendment tabled by Her Majesty’s Opposition and, secondly, by clause 1, which was thoughtfully introduced by the House of Lords, and under which there should be no reform of probation without the approval of both Houses. I was surprised by the rather dismissive attitude of the Justice Secretary towards clause 1. If, on the one hand, there is growing concern among those who lead and deliver the probation service, the police and crime commissioners and many others, while on the other hand Ministers have real conviction that their approach will work, what does the Justice Secretary have to be afraid of? If he cannot put his proposals with confidence to both Houses, subject them to scrutiny and gain an affirmative vote from both Houses, he should not be bringing these proposals before us at all. If he is so convinced that his proposals will be so successful, he should get behind clause 1 and be supportive of it.
	We have a conscientious prisons Minister, but in truth Ministers must be becoming increasingly concerned about the implications of the scale of the reforms they are seeking to introduce. They know that their proposals are unpopular; they know that there is widespread concern about the changes they want to make; and, frankly, they are running out of road. This headlong rush to introduce a wholesale change to probation has to be achieved within a year’s time in order to fit the political timetable of getting it done before the general election. Frankly, I think this is a recipe for a car crash; even now, I would urge Ministers to reflect further on that.
	Opposition Members are not the only ones making this point. As I have mentioned and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) mentioned in his speech, senior representatives of the probation service are making it clear that these changes could bring about a major threat to public safety. There are serious concerns, too, about this false separation between low and medium-risk offenders on the one hand and high-risk offenders on the other. That flies in the face of the professional experience of those who deliver the probation service. We know that risk is dynamic—it changes over time and there has to be a way of managing it—but it seems to me that the Government’s proposals do not cater for that level of dynamic risk.
	It is interesting and instructive to look at the figures put out over the weekend by the Justice Secretary himself to justify the changes that he is making. In 2011, according to him, 356 adult offenders released from prison sentences of less than 12 months committed serious violent offences, while 2,482 offenders serving the same term came out and committed serious acquisitive crime, including robberies, which are serious crimes against people. Those are serious crimes carried out by people who sound to me as if they might be—no, must be—high-risk criminals. Unless the Minister is going to correct me, under these proposals, when such individuals come out after serving their short-term sentences of
	less than 12 months, they would be among the low and medium-risk group, not the high-risk group. It looks as if the Minister is going to correct me, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Jeremy Wright: I can help the right hon. Gentleman and correct him on that. When those people are released, they will be subject to a risk assessment by the national probation service, and the NPS will make a judgment as to whether they are high, medium or low-risk offenders—and they will be allocated accordingly.

Paul Goggins: That is reassuring to an extent, but my point is that risk is dynamic—it changes—and that the assessment carried out prior to release might be different from that carried out a month after release or six months after release. There is not the fluidity in the system that would allow the management of that risk among the different groups. That is my point, which I hope the Minister will reflect on further.

Sadiq Khan: My right hon. Friend is an expert in this area. I would like to remind him that the definition of medium risk in the offender assessment system is that
	“there are identifiable indicators of risk of serious harm. Offenders may include those sentenced for domestic abuse, violence, sexual offences, possession of firearms. They may be in gangs, have serious mental health problems and/or drug and alcohol problems.”
	The Justice Secretary claims to be concerned about the small number of serious offenders with sentences of less than 12 months, but on the other hand he is allowing those sorts of offenders to be “supervised” by the likes of G4S, Serco and Uncle Tom Cobleigh.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The truth is, of course, that because the Justice Secretary started with a model of how he wants effectively to privatise 70% of what the probation service currently delivers, he has to squeeze all that risk into that larger majority of the work. This top-down model simply will not relate to or reflect the kind of risks that many offenders pose.

John McDonnell: The point made by probation officers —my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) identified it, too—is the issue of professionalism in identifying the trigger that takes place and pushes the risks to a higher level, even from those on shorter sentences.

Paul Goggins: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on this issue. I am happy to admit that he and I have not always agreed on every point about probation over the years, but he well understands that service, what happens on the front line and the difficult judgments and assessments that probation officers have to make in the face of people who can often be dangerous and difficult in the context of the chaotic lives that many of them lead. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.
	Reference has been made to the concerns of police and crime commissioners. This is interesting, because these are the new people elected under this Government’s reforms, yet they, too, are expressing concerns. They are doing so because they understand the importance of
	local partnerships for reducing crime and managing offenders. They are deeply worried that this Government’s proposals will erode those relationships, weaken them and put public safety at risk. That is why they are expressing their concerns.
	Another major issue is that two of the major private sector providers, which are the most likely bidders for the work on offer from the Ministry of Justice—G4S and Serco—are under criminal investigation, following allegations of their over-charging for services that they are already contracted to provide for the MOJ. I give credit to the Justice Secretary, because when he found out about this, he came to the House to make a statement and has taken appropriate action since then. I commend him for that, but the implication of his robust approach is that these two companies should be sidelined from the process of contract allocation at this stage. I say that not as someone who is ideologically opposed to the private sector having a role in this sphere—quite the reverse.

David Burrowes: What the right hon. Gentleman has just said prompts me to suggest that it is important to have a sense of proportion. It is true that an investigation is taking place in relation to G4S and Serco, but both the right hon. Gentleman and I are firm advocates of restorative justice, and G4S has done great work in that regard at, for example, Altcourse prison near Liverpool. The 70,000 G4S employees who are involved in the programme there are likely to be concerned about their own future, but many of them are working extremely hard to provide support and rehabilitation, and, not least, restorative justice.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed those issues in Committee and in the Chamber, and I know that he has speaks genuinely, but the crucial question relates to who commissions the service. If a local probation trust that understands the local need asks G4S to do the job, fair enough, but that is not what is on offer in this instance. What is on offer is that the Ministry of Justice down here in Whitehall will decide which private sector organisation should do the job, whether it be in Greater Manchester, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, or elsewhere. That is what concerns me.
	As I was about to say, I am not ideologically opposed to the provision of a role for the private sector. During the recent Opposition day debate, I referred to a report from Lord Carter of Coles which advocated greater contestability and a greater diversity of providers. I supported that report, and I still support it. I think that good work can come from the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector. What I am critical of is the straitjacket approach that the Secretary of State is imposing on the whole probation service.
	Members in all parts of the House have already raised a number of important questions, even before we have dealt with the question of the untested payment-by-results model that the Secretary of State seeks to impose. I support innovation in the criminal justice system. We should be determined to lower reoffending rates, and we should be looking for new ideas in that regard. The Peterborough and Doncaster pilots are interesting pilots, but that is all that they are: interesting pilots. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and
	Harlington (John McDonnell) noted from a sedentary position earlier, they are voluntary. Only two thirds of those who are eligible to take part in them actually do so, and they are likely to be more motivated than others when it comes to cutting risks, stopping offending, and getting back on to the straight and narrow.
	The Secretary of State has said that the results of the pilots so far are very encouraging, and we should take account of that, but I urge Ministers also to listen to the critics and experts who say “Let us be a little more cautious before jumping to national conclusions based on two local, voluntary pilots”—especially because those who have served short sentences often have the most chaotic lifestyles, are the most likely not to have jobs or homes, and are the most likely to reoffend. They are the most challenging group.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made an interesting and wise observation earlier when, in an intervention, he spoke of the role of the voluntary sector in a payment-by-results system. Such a system ought to present an opportunity to voluntary organisations, but the danger is—and I have heard this fear expressed—that the context and culture of payment by results will deter and undermine the many voluntary organisations that are doing great work in helping to turn people’s lives around, and they will lose a role rather than gaining one.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting pointed out earlier, the Secretary of State has form when it comes to payment by results. I have looked at the latest payment-by-results figures relating to the Work programme. The September figures confirm that, even now, the system is not meeting even the minimum expectations of the Department for Work and Pensions. Indeed, three providers have already been penalised for poor performance.
	It is instructive to look at what the Work programme has been doing for offenders, which is highly relevant to today’s debate. Of the 19,800 offenders who were released in 2012 and referred to the programme, only 360 had been found a job by June this year. I think that Ministers should be extremely cautious, rather than over-bullish and over-claiming, when it comes to the results of the Work programme and of payment by results.
	There are obviously many questions to be answered, and that is before we have dealt with the practical issues of appointing staff, transferring cases, getting the IT up and running, sorting out the offices, renegotiating contracts, and ending existing contracts. All that must be done not in five years, but in five minutes; or, at any rate, in the weeks and months that lie ahead. Serious Ministers—and I include the prisons Minister in that class—should pause to reflect on precisely where things are at the moment. The prisons Minister should do what he has been asked to do—certainly by Labour Members, and, I suspect, by Government Members who have serious concerns—and organise a proper pilot that is properly evaluated. If he is right, that is fine, but if aspects of the model are not correct, he should think again. In other words, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said, he should be led by the evidence and not by ideology.
	As I have said, I think that the central ambition of the Bill is a good one, and in principle I support it. I said the same during the Opposition day debate a few days ago, and I was grateful to my right hon. Friend for
	quoting from my speech earlier. I wanted to implement custody plus, and I was frustrated by our inability to introduce it when we were in government, because—for all the reasons that have been given today—the people whom we are discussing are the very people who need help, supervision and support the most. The obstacle was the £194 million a year that it would have cost to introduce custody plus: I am happy to admit that, and to express my frustration about it.

Sadiq Khan: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that custody plus was still on the statute book until the former Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—who knows about finance—removed it via the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. He realised that the cost was exorbitant, whereas the current incumbent clearly does not.

Paul Goggins: Indeed. It is regrettable, in a way, that the Government took custody plus off the statute book rather than trying to build it up, and even work on a cross-party basis.
	We are told repeatedly that the cost of supervising the 50,000 offenders who leave prison having served short sentences will be met from the savings generated by the competition that will take place for the rest of the work that has been allocated. I said two weeks ago that I did not believe that, and I say the same today. The maths itself tells the story. The Government propose that the private and voluntary sectors should be given 70% of the current probation work load: that is to be the deal. Some 220,000 offenders are currently being supervised by the probation service; 70% of 220,000 is roughly 150,000—and the private and voluntary sectors must find the resources to supervise another 50,000 on top of that.
	When I go to the supermarket, I am used to seeing “Buy three, get one free”, but I am not used to seeing that when it comes to planning and paying for the supervision of some problematic offenders. It just will not wash. Ministers keep saying that they will not give us the figures because the information is commercially confidential and is all to do with competition, but they know that the figures will not add up, and they really ought to come clean about that.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) made an important point about the potential for an unintended consequence in the sentencing of offenders. There is a danger that, as a result of the Bill, more people will be subject to short-term prison sentences and the value of community sentences will be undermined. I am not saying that that is what Ministers intend, but there is a danger of it, and it is spelled out in the impact assessment: Ministers accept that there is a risk of so-called uptariffing—that people will get a more severe sentence than might otherwise have been the case.
	We know that there will be 600 extra prison places as a result of the numbers of offenders who will be recalled to prison, but there is a risk of a change in the behaviour of sentencers, too. It is common sense that if a sentencer is being offered a choice between a package of community activity and supervision and, as an alternative, that package plus some prison beforehand, they will be
	tempted to go for the belt-and-braces approach. I would appreciate it if the Minister would tell us in his winding-up speech what discussions he has been having with the magistrates and the Sentencing Council to make sure that we do not see an overuse of short-term custody as a result of his changes and an undermining of community sentences.
	There is also a real risk that certain vulnerable groups will not be helped if the Bill’s provisions are interpreted in, as it were, an automatic way, because that will lead to more supervision and stronger sanctions. A higher proportion of female than male offenders receive a short custodial sentence, and many of them come out of prison to chaotic lives and with abusive relationships to deal with. If things break down, it may not be appropriate for them to go back to prison automatically. That worries me, and I would like the Minister to say more about the flexibility in the system he is introducing, so people do not too automatically go back to prison when their needs are rather different.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning women offenders. Does he agree that there is a problem with payment-by-results contracts in that, because there are fewer women offenders and unit costs are therefore higher, and because their needs are often more complex, they are often more expensive to supervise and therefore may be particularly unattractive to private providers?

Paul Goggins: That is a very real concern and I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance to put that point on the record and introduce it into the debate. Groups with specific and additional needs—vulnerable female offenders or mentally ill offenders, for instance—will not be an attractive proposition to people who are looking to do things at the lowest possible cost.

Alan Beith: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the voluntary sector has done some extraordinarily good work in giving opportunities to women offenders, and if we can integrate what we are talking about here with women’s centres around the country, there is a possibility of real improvement?

Paul Goggins: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who is an excellent Select Committee Chair. I hope Ministers will still be listening to him and his Committee colleagues when they produce their report following the inquiry they are currently conducting. Many women’s centres are facing cuts at a time when we need them more than ever, so there is a very real difficulty, but I think all the points that have been made about women offenders are well made. I hope Ministers are gradually getting the message that they have to do something specific and different in relation to women offenders.
	I mentioned offenders who are mentally ill. The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health have made a very impressive commitment to do more to try to help people with a mental illness who get caught up in the criminal justice system. The national liaison and diversion scheme, which was introduced following a
	recommendation by our noble Friend Lord Bradley, who has done some fantastic work in this area, is very welcome. Again, however, I put it to the Minister that there are real dangers of the policy he is trying to introduce in this Bill running headlong into the more positive policy towards people with mental illness that he and the Department of Health are trying to introduce. Again, I am looking for reassurances about flexibility in the way people with mental illness are treated at the point where consideration may be given to returning them to prison, which might not be the most appropriate thing.
	Finally, I have a concern about care leavers. Some young people in care might go into prison as a child and come out as an adult and a care leaver. That could produce additional difficulties, because who will have the prime responsibility? Will it be the private provider of the supervision that comes after a prison sentence, or will it be the local authority which has continuing responsibilities for those who leave care beyond the age of 18?
	These are matters of detail, but they are important matters which must be addressed if the Minister is to get this legislation into the best shape possible. Then again, if the Minister does get this Bill into the best shape possible, he still cannot walk away from the context in which he is seeking to deliver it. Even though I agree with the core aim of the proposed legislation, I am deeply worried that introducing it into the turmoil of change that he and the Justice Secretary are planning is a recipe for disaster, and that is why, regrettably, this Bill is unsupportable at this point.

David Burrowes: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time.
	I want to pay tribute to the wide experience we have across the House in relation to criminal justice. There are criminal defence solicitor practitioners such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), there is the Justice Committee Chairman, who has served in this House for 40 years, throughout that time championing the cause of rehabilitation, and there is the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who has a good track-record as a Minister. It is a great shame, however, that we cannot unite cross-party around offender rehabilitation.
	Members are saying that they agree, in their different ways, with the principle and substance of this Bill, but we cannot unite on it. Everyone who has been involved in this area, whether as a criminal defence practitioner, a Minister, a Select Committee Chairman or a constituency Member, will know what to make of what the shadow Justice Secretary referred to as an anomaly, which was the closest he got to an apology for the previous Government leaving this huge area unreformed. At long last we have a Government who are putting offender rehabilitation as the centrepiece of a criminal justice Bill.
	Every year Members spend time in this House and in Committee scrutinising yet another criminal justice Bill and putting more offences on the statute book, responding, perhaps, to popular––or populist––demand, but not getting to the crux of the problem, which is offender rehabilitation and sky-high reoffending rates. What a
	shame that we cannot unite today to give a Second Reading to this Bill even though we agree on its main principle, which is tackling short-term sentencing and ensuring that rehabilitation is mandatory.
	I pay tribute to the probation service, and many concerns have been expressed on its behalf. I know it well, as representatives of the service have come to see me recently, and I also know from my 20 years as a criminal defence solicitor about the excellent and diligent work done by probation staff. We have heard about the long hours they work, and how they deal with complex cases and issues. They cannot just tick a box to get someone off the cycle of crime, and probation service staff are willing to go the extra mile and engage with non-criminal justice services to ensure someone gets into work, restores family relationships and addresses all the other areas that we know serve to drive down reoffending.
	Although we must ensure that we keep those skills in the service and that the measures in this Bill support that, we must also recognise something we have not heard enough of: what members of the public, both victims and taxpayers, think when they see reoffending rates in respect of short-term sentences of 58%. That is failure. That is 58% service failure, and if any other service or business—although some people do not like talking too much about business—had a 58% product failure rate, people would say, “We have to do something about this.”
	This is a catastrophic failure by the previous Government, not merely an anomaly. This is a massive gap in the previous Government’s policy in relation to criminal justice, despite the best efforts of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. Although they put “custody plus” on the statute book, they failed to implement it and ensure we could provide a better service to our constituents. They are the people who have had to live with and put up with—sometimes as victims—people coming back and repeating crime, as a result of that failure.
	It is all very well saying, “We failed because of cost. We don’t have the cost”, but we heard no answers from the Opposition as to what they are going to do about that, apart from making this political point about clause 1. All they could say was, “We tried to put it on the statute book. But we did not do anything about it—we did not implement it—and we could not do it because of cost.” That is not good enough—it is not good enough for all those people are the recipients of that 58% failure rate—and we must do more. Whenever there is a 58% service failure, there is a need for change. There is a need for leadership change, and we have got that, because we now have a Secretary of State who is willing to be bold and radical, and wants to do something about the situation. That is why I applaud the principle of this Bill, which is about offender rehabilitation. However, we also need to change how we do that.
	What is the bottom line here? Sadly, we have a dividing line, which is going to become evident at the Division, between those who support the Second Reading and the principle of the Bill—those who say that the status quo is unacceptable—and those on the side of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who says, “The status quo is acceptable. We are just going to have to talk to the probation service.” He is going to talk, but what more? He is saying, in effect, that we
	should sideline this issue of service change for another 18 months and not get on with the job. We can talk about the issues of implementation and about how we need practically to carry out the principle of the Offender Management Act 2007, but why is he wanting to have dividing lines at this stage?
	All hon. Members would like to see more mentoring to ensure that people actually get “through the gate”. I understand that 65% of offenders say, “If I had that mentor who took me through the gate, it would have a dramatic effect on my offending.” We cannot just have the status quo. As I mentioned in an intervention, there are cases where the private, voluntary and public sectors provide mentoring, but they are all too infrequent and the mentoring is voluntary, not mandatory. At its heart, the Bill is saying that there will be mandatory supervision, and that is about mentoring. We will not just have the same situation, whereby what people see through the gate is not that mentor who takes them into rehabilitation, but the drug dealer waiting for them, or their mates who are going to get them back into the same cycle of crime. For the sake of these people, we are not going to put up with the status quo tonight.
	Sadly, 62% of these offenders will not get into employment after their release, and that status quo is also unacceptable. They are going to get into jobseeker’s allowance, and attempts will be made to get them back into work through the Work programme and other schemes. All too often, they get back into the only career they know, which they have learned all too well in prison: a repeated career in crime. That is not acceptable.
	Nor is the status quo acceptable in terms of drug misuse, which, as we all know, is prolific. We know that 64% of prisoners will have taken drugs in the four weeks before going into prison. We can intervene and do all we can in prisons, and good work is going on in rehabilitation wings. RAPt—the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners trust—and other agencies are doing good work trying to ensure that we turn people around in the captive community of prison. However, what we need to do is ensure that when they get out of prison they are released into the hands of drug treatment providers and have the appointment that is going to be mandated in this legislation. That matters greatly and it shows why the status quo is not acceptable for these people, too. Too often, not only are they not getting off drugs, but they are getting more addicted to them in prison. If we cannot sort these people out in prison, we need to do more to ensure that we get them off drugs when they get out.
	We have not heard so much about families in this debate, but 200,000 children in England and Wales have a parent in prison. That is extremely significant, as is the fact that at least 40% of these prisoners say that if there was that family support—those visits from family—when they are in prison and, crucially, continued support when they are released, it would have a dramatic effect on whether they reoffend. The status quo is unacceptable not only for the offenders, but for their families—their children. The evidence of intergenerational crime is growing, and for those children it is not acceptable for us to sit and argue around the edges today; we must take a stand and say that the status quo is unacceptable.
	I declare an interest as a criminal defence solicitor. In some ways, I have a perverse interest in not voting for the Bill’s Second Reading tonight. In many ways, my
	trade has an interest in this reoffending cycle continuing, my filing cabinet being full, with lots of new clients coming through the system. In many ways, it is not in my interest to vote for Second Reading, but it clearly is because I have a duty to ensure that we do all we can to prevent reoffending. I will be on the side of the public and victims, who want to do more.
	We have the framework in the 2007 Act that enables us to put in place the contestability to allow proper rehabilitation. In some ways, what I heard in some of the speeches from Opposition Members is a throwback to the olden days, but if they listened to what their colleagues said many years ago, they would hear very different things. If they had listened to the speeches made by the then Home Secretary in 2006, they would have heard the following words:
	“There is only so much that internal reform of the probation service can achieve”.
	They would also have heard:
	“There is no need for all of these jobs to be done by the same agency…we need to match appropriate skills to appropriate tasks to free up professional probation officers to focus on the most serious criminals in the community.”
	Those words were a precursor to the 2007 Act. How things have changed in the Labour Opposition’s rhetoric now; they are certainly going against the principles behind the 2007 Act.

Jenny Chapman: On that quote from the debate around the 2007 Act, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that those words were aimed at the establishment of probation trusts and not at their abolition, which is what this Bill will lead to?

David Burrowes: The quote’s focus is on matching appropriate skills to appropriate tasks. We must ensure that the skills of probation staff are properly matched, not only so that they can deal with serious criminals, but so that we can use the best people around to secure rehabilitation for short-sentence offenders. Of course probation staff are going to be needed. They are going to be in the front line, because they are the experts, to ensure that the new organisations that are working to deliver payment by results are going to do the job. Of course, they are not going to ignore these skills, but we need to focus on how we can match the appropriate skills to the demands we face.
	We face new demands, because we have recognised that there is unfinished business here. Dealing with offenders on short sentences is unfinished business that we cannot simply ignore by saying it is a matter of costs. We need to find a way, a model, to deliver rehabilitation to these people. Payment by results has been mentioned, so I will go into a little more detail about that mechanism because I have some experience of it. We should not ignore the value of paying for success. It may provide an opportunity and, indeed, a profit for some companies, but success will be measured by a mechanism of ensuring that offending is reduced, but that has a dramatic effect on people’s lives, on rehabilitating the individual and on the public, the victims and the taxpayer.
	Taxpayers hearing this debate will think the current situation extraordinary. They will say, “Is it the case that in law we do not have to rehabilitate or supervise
	released prisoners who were serving less than 12 months? When we look at the cohort of the most prolific, who are causing the most damage in our community, is it not extraordinary that it has taken this long, and this amount of debate on and scrutiny of different criminal justice Bills, for us to have, at last, a principle that we must mandate supervision of this category? Why was this never in place before?” They may then even ask the Opposition, who want to divide on Second Reading, why they are trying to stand in the way of progress and of the principle of rehabilitating this cohort.
	Clause 1, which took up some time while being scrutinised in the other place, is relevant in the sense of dealing with implementation, but it is impractical to suggest that we must come back before the House when any change is made to the probation service. To my mind, although I respect the experienced people who moved clause 1, it is more in line with an early-day motion to which people can sign up to make a political point, to make a noise and to show concern. It does not have practical value. We must get serious about how we can implement our approach practically.
	I agree with the principles of the Bill. It is properly focused on the taxpayer, who has not had much of a mention, on the victim and, indeed, on the offender, to ensure that we consider the results and outcomes so that we do what we all want to do—that is, reduce offending—whether the work takes place in the private, public or voluntary sector.
	We must be careful in how we approach the private sector. G4S and Serco are bandied about as though we were going to throw out the private sector from any relationship or involvement with rehabilitation, but it is also important not to trash the 70,000 G4S employees or those employed by Serco. I do not understate the serious investigation into some of the contracts, but we are also dealing with contracts on rehabilitation, getting people through the gate and mentoring. I mentioned the transitional support service in Wales, which deals with women and men. It has been evaluated independently as a most effective model, which is producing great success. The problem is that the system is voluntary, whereas the Bill is about making it mandatory, as well as the schemes operating around the country.
	We have work in prisons; for example, Altcourse prison has an employment programme that provides 40 hours’ work in prison. Years ago, many a Minister would have dreamed about that and it happens through G4S and the private sector. We must recognise that those contracts must happen in partnership with those in the public and voluntary sector so that we can deliver and upscale the good schemes, as we are now mandated to.
	I want to refer to some of the requirements on drugs and alcohol rehabilitation. I particularly welcome the mandated requirement for drug rehabilitation appointments. That is needed and should happen for appointments not just in the statutory service but in the voluntary service. The great hidden army delivering rehabilitation—the “Anonymous” groups—would also welcome such a move. That happens in other countries: they specify directionally that requirements should include an appointment at an “Anonymous” group. I would welcome that.
	I welcome the flexibility in the Bill on rehabilitation activity requirements but, as I said in my intervention on the Justice Secretary, it is important that we also
	recognise the value of the specific requirements under previous legislation, not least those on mental health and alcohol and drug rehabilitation. Indeed, the alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirement is still in force and is being piloted, and I would not want us to lose that valuable measure. I want an assurance that we will be able to do that properly.
	The court also has a crucial role. Drug rehabilitation requirements have been ordered in some cases and, for one reason or another, have not been delivered on the ground. The court has had to come back and say that they are a requirement of the court that must be delivered. There must be reviews by the court, which has a crucial role. Yes, we need flexibility for those delivering rehabilitation, but the courts have an important part to play.
	Finally, we must consider implementation carefully. I recognise the concerns that people have raised about payment by results, but we have already been there. The Work programme has been mentioned, but I want to mention the drugs recovery pilots. I have had a particular role in helping to model those pilots and in seeing how they have worked out, particularly in my patch, Enfield. It is important to recognise that this area is complicated, that such schemes take careful local design and that the matter must be handled with care. I recognise that, but it is also important that we are not fixated by the price mechanism, the amount that is paid and whom it is paid to. One lesson learned from the pilots has been that the service has been transformed. They have linked together not just the drug treatment providers but those who want to support people into housing and employment. The service change brings those organisations together under a payment mechanism.

Jenny Chapman: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about payment by results and drugs initiatives. He is right that lessons are being learned through piloting. Is he not concerned that the 70% sell-off of probation to be delivered by payment by results is being done with no piloting whatsoever?

David Burrowes: My point is that there have been many different pilots in the past few years that have considered different ways of ensuring that we are more driven by outcomes than by process. One of the great failures of the previous Government, not least on drug treatment, was that it was all based on process and on ticking a box. Indeed, the so-called payment by results was payment by activity, driven not by rehabilitation and outcomes but by the numbers of people getting into treatment. That is why it is important to recognise that payment by results has a crucial role to play across all public services, but will vary from service to service. We must therefore handle with care how we deliver payment by results on criminal justice.
	I want to offer some advice on the LASARS, or the local area single assessment and referral systems—we are all into acronyms when we have service changes. They have had a particularly good effect, not least because they are locally based. They are also based on single assessments and many of us involved in the criminal justice system will be all too aware of the repetitive assessments throughout the system that lack continuity and delivery of change. LASARS allow a single assessment in the criminal justice and non-criminal
	justice worlds. Payment by results offers us the opportunity to get away from the criminal justice mindset in that regard. Public health interest concerns, mental health concerns and educational concerns must be dealt with under a wider remit than that simply required by a criminal justice model. That is why we need to make the most of the opportunity offered by the LASARS, which would help refer people to the right places through a single assessment.
	Co-design is also important and we must recognise its value. One such example can be found in London, where the Mayor, Boris Johnson, has helped pilot Project Daedalus, which focuses on the rehabilitation of young offenders through the resettlement wing at Feltham. That cohort had appalling reoffending rates at 70%, yet through the scheme he did so much better. The project was radical in that there was a resettlement broker who could negotiate with employers, accommodation providers, drug rehabilitation providers and others to try to ensure that rehabilitation was delivered.

Mike Wood: Is it the vast improvement at Feltham that means that the Government plan to close it?

David Burrowes: The hon. Gentleman will note the welcome fall in the number of young people in custody, for which the Government can take credit. Feltham is a good example of new models and new ways of doing things. The old Feltham, based almost on a borstal-type approach, is past its sell-by date in many ways—

Mike Wood: Why close it?

David Burrowes: The hon. Gentleman comments from a sedentary position, but I ask him to allow me to finish. If the number of people going into an institution is in decline, one must reconsider the question of value for money. I encourage him to consider the consultations on secure colleges, with the opportunities for us to upscale what has been lost in Feltham. We talk about training and education, and we should try to ensure that we have more intensive rehabilitation that, although it takes place in custody, does not take place in custody on the same model as at Feltham. I agree that Feltham is another example of an institution that is past its sell-by date and needs change and radical overhaul, but that is why we recognise that we cannot go on with the status quo of the Felthams of this world or with the status quo for those people who come out of Feltham and other institutions and do not get the rehabilitation they and the public need.
	Project Daedalus was very much focused on such a goal and was able to reduce reoffending, as I understand it, to 53%. That was an encouraging rate. The lessons learned from that project, which I saw from an early stage, are important. The brokerage system is important, but so are the connections back to the London boroughs. That relationship is important. I recognise that some partnerships are working now, such as the offender management programme in London, which brings together the offending management teams. Those relationships need to be continued under payment by results. We learned from the drug recovery pilots that the way to do that is to ensure that the co-design process brings local authorities along with it. It is important that there is accountability, too.
	The importance of LASARs lies in their independence from providers and, in some cases, commissioners. They provide some accountability in the system, independent of the provider, and ensure that there is an advocate. We know that offenders will not all go in one direction; when they go in different directions, the advocate will make sure that there is a proper referral system that works all the way through a reoffender’s rehabilitation.

Paul Goggins: I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I will give him the benefit of the doubt—perhaps he can clarify this—but I hope that he is not suggesting that he and his colleagues are in favour of change and innovation, while Opposition Members simply want the status quo. If he is, I urge him to reflect on that. He has just spoken in great detail, and with great knowledge, about the complexity of local relationships. Given that complexity, the introduction of the new model of payment by results needs to be done carefully. It might help to have a proper, thorough pilot, and to evaluate it properly and thoroughly, before rolling the model out across the country.

David Burrowes: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I am not suggesting that he is completely on the side of not having innovation and progress, but the reality is that we have to make a decision in this place. The Bill sets down the principle of mandatory supervision of those sentenced to under 12 months, and that is an important marker. There are issues relating to implementation and the timetable—much concern has been expressed about that—but they can be worked through; they are not good enough reason for voting against the Bill on Second Reading.
	Clause 1 tries to create an artificial dividing line when all of us are very much on the same side in wanting rehabilitation. It has been so many years since we last had the opportunity to put centre stage the rehabilitation of offenders, particularly those with short sentences; we should not let down the public.
	We have heard a number of interesting speeches. Concerns were raised about justice reinvestment. Justice reinvestment does not go completely against the principles of the Bill—far from it. There are different models of payment by results that can ensure that, as I suggested, we continue local links and partnerships, and make sure that savings are reinvested in the local area. The more we involve local groups—small and, yes, large—in this enterprise, as I believe we will have to, the more the local area will benefit. I look forward to the contracts that are awarded involving a partnership of private sector bodies—large or small—the voluntary sector and the public, and ensuring that reoffending rates are driven down.
	Today, having raised concerns, our task is not to argue unnecessarily about implementation points. We have a simple choice tonight. We can do nothing. We can follow the path already set as regards short-term sentences —they were legislated for once under custody plus—and do nothing as regards implementation. We can allow that 58% rate of reoffending to continue, without any idea of change. We can decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. Or we can grasp this opportunity to get to grips with what has perhaps been on the too-hard-to-do
	pile, and give the Government credit for being willing to tackle the issue. We do not have everyone in our constituencies saying to us, “Please, please, do this,” but we know that the issue affects our constituencies through crime rates. We should give offenders a second chance of getting through the gate, having a mentor, getting into employment or rehab, and getting back in contact with their family. We should be on the side of victims and taxpayers. For those reasons, I urge hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Kate Green: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time. It is also a great pleasure to participate in such a well-informed debate.
	I listened with great interest to a number of the contributions, particularly that of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), with whom I found myself in considerable agreement at many points. The difficulty is that he believes that we should take on trust the need to proceed with the terms of the Bill, and give the Bill a Second Reading, when so many questions have been raised and left unanswered in this debate and the debate that took place in the Chamber a week or so ago. That might not matter if we felt that there was time, during the passage and implementation of the legislation, to undertake careful scrutiny of those concerns, and time to research and implement the measures necessary to address them, but the proposals are being rushed through by the Government.
	Already, shadow structures are being set up, the bidding process is under way, and local probation staff are being asked to begin to think about their future under the changed structures. There will be an incredibly rapid approach to trying to implement what a number of my colleagues have rightly described as rather half-baked legislation. If I believed that, if we gave the Bill a Second Reading tonight, the time would be taken to address all the concerns properly, I might be prepared to vote for it, but the problem is that we know that Second Reading will be followed rapidly by the final stages of the Bill and implementation, and a series of major concerns will be left unanswered. That is a real worry.

Jeremy Corbyn: Has my hon. Friend observed that under the programme motion, we will complete the Committee stage by the beginning of December? It is highly unlikely that any further reports can be prepared by then, and that we can have an informed discussion on the issues, before the whole Bill is disposed of.

Kate Green: The timing is of serious concern, and is driven more by electoral imperatives than a desire to make sure that we devise a system that is effective and right.
	There is much to welcome in the intentions behind the Bill. Like many others who have spoken, I warmly welcome the wish to introduce post-release supervision for those serving short-term custodial sentences. As many have said, there has been a gap in our system up till now, and it is good to begin to explore ways in which it could be filled. I am also pleased to see a provision in the Bill on considering the needs and circumstances of
	women offenders. We have been pressing for that since Baroness Corston’s excellent report; it is approaching five years since it was published. It is welcome to see that making an appearance in the Bill.
	However, those welcome objectives in no way justify a pell-mell destruction—a wholesale dismantling—of the public probation service that is not founded on logic, and does not appear to be founded on good or consistent evidence. That is why clause 1, with all its flaws—I accept some of the flaws that have been suggested—is important. We should not pursue these far-reaching changes without proper parliamentary scrutiny of the detail of what will be put in place. If the Minister would like to come forward with ways to improve the clause, and suggest to what degree that parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate, I would be happy to hear what he has to say, but it seems quite wrong to continue down the track of implementing the proposals when such serious concerns are being expressed.

Jeremy Wright: This is probably an unfair intervention, as I see that the hon. Lady does not have a copy of the Offender Management Act 2007 with her, but does she know where in that Act anything comparable to clause 1 appears?

Kate Green: No, that is not my point. My point is that we are going into a wholesale rearrangement of the public probation service—a service that has existed to manage the totality of risk, and take overall responsibility for it. That is what is being broken up. It is extremely important that we do not go down that track without proper parliamentary scrutiny of the implications and consequences, and that scrutiny is what clause 1 seeks to achieve.

Jenny Chapman: The Minister was being rather cheeky, because we had a whole Act to reorganise the probation service and establish trusts. The Government are attempting to dismantle the probation service without any parliamentary scrutiny whatever.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
	There are concerns about the contracting structure that will be introduced as a result of the Bill. I want to repeat some of the concerns that have been expressed about the way in which the contracts will be priced. It has been presented by the Lord Chancellor this afternoon and more generally as being predominantly a payment-by-results model which will seek to introduce new private funding into a marketplace where, within the public sector, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) pointed out, it would be difficult to find those levels of additional funding, particularly in these times of public spending constraint.
	The point is that a very small proportion of these contracts, it seems, will genuinely be payment-by-results contracts. Substantial elements of these contracts will be subject to meeting court requirements, which means that there will have to be enough money in those contracts to ensure that those court requirements can be adequately met by the contractors. That, for a start, will leave relatively little room for manoeuvre in pricing a more discretionary element and an element that is about payment by results.
	It is also the case, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, that within the existing spending envelope not only are these providers to manage about 150,000 existing offenders subject to supervision, but to take on board a further perhaps 50,000 within the context of the same funding envelope. That is not credible. It means either that we will have a very poor quality of intervention and/or cherry-picking, with a substantial number of those offenders receiving no support of any value at all.
	I am also concerned about the way in which the pricing structures will respond to what a number of hon. Members have talked about—the changing risk profiles that we see when offenders are subject to supervision. As others have said, offender risk profiles are not static. Risk profiles can vary. Offenders can be beset by a range of external pressures and circumstances—bereavement, loss of a job, ending of a relationship, becoming homeless and so on—all of which can take a relatively stable low to medium-risk offender and suddenly catapult them into being high risk. At that point, we understand that the low or medium-risk offender would switch from being supervised by a non-statutory provider into the public probation supervision system. They would be supervised within the statutory sector.
	But I do not think we have been told—perhaps the Minister will intervene on me if he has information to share about this—how that would be reflected in the pricing and the reward for the private contractor, and what additional resources would be made available to the public probation service if the risk profiles that had been assumed in the initial pricing of the contract turn out not to be what is experienced in practice.

Jeremy Wright: rose—

Kate Green: I sense that the Minister is going to offer me some information.

Jeremy Wright: I accept the invitation. On the first of the two points that she raised, in relation to what happens to the income for the provider if someone moves out of the medium and low-risk category and into the high-risk category, the answer is that that individual will stay within the cohort for payment-by-results purposes, so there is no financial incentive—that is the purpose of this—for the provider to move someone on to the public sector. On the second issue that she raised—how the public sector attracts the money to do the extra work with the extra people—the money should follow the individual.

Kate Green: I am not sure that I have totally understood this. It seemed that the private provider would retain any income attached to the result—the outcome—although we do not know what proportion of that overall payment to the private provider will be for the result and what will be a fixed payment for having to carry out the basics of supervision. It is welcome that the Minister says that resources will follow the offender, and therefore that if there is extra activity to be carried out in the public sector, the public sector will receive the necessary resources to carry out that work, but I am not quite clear where that funding will come from if the private provider is also to be remunerated in full for the work that it has carried out and for any ultimate outcome that may be achieved. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide more detail as the Bill proceeds on its parliamentary passage. It would be useful to understand the cash flow and funding models in more detail.
	Concerns have been expressed about the way in which prisoner risk categorisation will be undertaken. We have quite a long established system—OASys—for determining levels of risk. It is being suggested that one of the things that the Ministry of Justice may wish to do is to revisit that risk assessment system to try to change the profile of the offender base so that more offenders can be deemed to be low or medium risk and supervised in the private or non-profit sector rather than, as would be suggested on current risk assessment tools, within the public probation service.

Jenny Chapman: My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this issue. As I understand it, a new risk assessment tool will be introduced at the same time as these reforms take place. Is she concerned, as I am, that this would be the worst possible time to introduce that change?

Kate Green: We have clearly heard the same rumours. It is important that we understand what the new risk assessment tool will look like, what the implications will be for the overall risk profile of this cohort of offenders, and whether we can expect to see some significant shifts in the way that the level of risk is identified and assessed.

John McDonnell: This is getting barmier by the minute. The transaction costs need to be assessed. The transaction costs of the reassessment of offenders with the new risk assessment tool will be massive. In addition, there will be the transaction costs of monitoring the flow of money as offenders move between the risk categories.

Kate Green: Perhaps I am overcomplicating what is being proposed by the Government, but it seems to me that the whole financial structure and the way in which that relates to risk assessment is very unclear to Members—certainly to Opposition Members. It would be helpful, during the passage of the Bill, for the Government to make that clear to us so that we can understand the true financial as well as the risk consequences of what is proposed.

Jenny Chapman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Kate Green: I will give way one more time, then I want to move on to another issue.

Jenny Chapman: My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way and I am grateful. The problem is that we will not have the opportunity to go into these issues in more detail as the Bill progresses because none of the concerns being raised is in the Bill. That is the point of our amendment.

Kate Green: It is clear that we need much more time to scrutinise these proposals properly and, sadly, that is not what we are being offered by the Government tonight.
	I turn to an issue that has been raised by a number of hon. Members, mostly Government Members, about the opportunities that exist for probation trusts in some form to bid for the new contracts. It is pretty clearly understood in my area that they will not have that opportunity to bid. It is baffling to me that, when they
	are doing such good work already, we would not want to give them the opportunity at least to compete for those contracts. They might not be successful, but surely where we have good models of provision in the public sector, we would want to enable them to put themselves forward in competition with other potential providers.
	It has been said, rightly, by a number of hon. Members that there will be the opportunity for probation trusts to set up different kinds of legal structures—co-operatives, mutuals, shadow structures and so on. I am not sure why we think there is any particular advantage to the public in forcing them to go down that route. Again, I cannot help but believe that it will create extra cost and extra complexity. Nor is it clear to me that we know what these mutuals and co-operatives will and will not be allowed to bid for.
	It would be helpful if the Minister commented on that in his response and told the House how he envisages these entities coming into a system when the contracting is beginning to take place already, before many of them have had any chance to get off the ground.

Paul Maynard: rose—

Kate Green: I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this issue so I am pleased to take his intervention.

Paul Maynard: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being most generous. Does she agree that Greater Manchester is one of the more innovative probation trusts and has had a number of very successful schemes and should perhaps be seen as a litmus test of whether the condition for mutuals is going to occur in practice.

Kate Green: I agree that Greater Manchester has been innovative. As I say, in my discussions with Greater Manchester, the trust was preparing for exactly this approach, at least a year ago, and had the brakes put on. It was told that it would not be able to bid in the process in the way that it had planned, so I would be interested to understand, as I think the hon. Gentleman would, what Greater Manchester and other such trusts will and will not be able to bid for, what sort of entities they will have to establish to enable them to bid and potentially to take a leading role in that bidding process, and whether there will be time for them to create those entities and put in bids, given that as I understand it, the preliminaries of the process are already under way this month. He and I look forward to some reassurances from the Minister.
	A number of my colleagues have pointed out that the Lord Chancellor’s proposals mirror the structure and approach of the Work programme, which he introduced as Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions. Leaving aside the pretty poor performance of the Work programme to date—I am prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt; it may achieve improved outcomes over time, although it is getting off to a depressingly slow start—in the light of everything that has been said in the Chamber this evening about what we have seen from the Work programme and what seems to be being replicated in these contracts, I am concerned that we will have a nationally, top-down driven system, when what we have heard from both sides of the House, about innovative experiments in different parts of the
	country, is that a localised, bottom-up, partnership approach across a range of local agencies has been what has worked best.
	I am concerned that the track record of some of the large multinational providers, who are likely to bid for these contracts—indeed may be the only people qualified and able to take the risk inherent in bidding for these contracts—is that they are not good at developing supply chains down the local agencies. As hon. Members may know, many voluntary and charitable organisations have complained bitterly about their experiences with the Work programme. They complain that they have been used as so-called bid candy, but have not been given any opportunity to deliver activity. They complain that they have had very few referrals, having been included on bids by the large prime contractors. There are real concerns that we are seeing a model that looks very like the Work programme in terms of top-down, Department-led contracting. There are also concerns about whether we can be confident that those problems and pitfalls will not occur in these contracts in the way that they did in the Work programme.

David Burrowes: Are not the hon. Lady’s fears somewhat allayed when she looks beyond some of the headlines and at some of the private companies? The ones that are delivering results and are effective in reducing offending, which would be paid in the system, are only those that are properly engaged at a local level with small organisations and the voluntary and public sectors. It is only when all that comes together at a local level that they will deliver results and be paid. So their every incentive is to do what the hon. Lady fears will not happen.

Kate Green: The same claims were made for the Work programme, but the experience has been entirely different. At the very least we must expect the Minister to give us some reassurances as to why this will be different when the model looks so very similar.
	Hon. Members have talked about some of the innovative programmes in their own probation trusts. As has been said, Greater Manchester has had a number of particularly innovative programmes. One in particular speaks directly to the Government’s proposals for post-release supervision for those serving short custodial sentences. I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the Choose Change programme that was developed in Greater Manchester. It has been running for a number of years and we await its final evaluation. I hope that the Government are drawing some interesting and important lessons from that experience, on which I would like to hear the Minister’s comments tonight.
	It is clear when we look at Choose Change—a through-the-gate programme, working with offenders in prison, as they left prison and on release—that it depended heavily on being a multi-agency programme in which private, public and voluntary providers were all comprehensively engaged. That included the prison and probation services, corporate partners, the voluntary and community sector, and, crucially, local authorities. I am very unclear how local authorities will fit into the model of provision in this Bill.
	It was instructive from Choose Change that the range of interventions needed was extensive. They included interventions in relation to employment, education and training. Many offenders, as the Minister will be well
	aware, have exceptionally poor levels of literacy and numeracy, so investing in routing them to the right educational opportunities and continuing their education commenced inside prison consistently on release is an important element that will need to be designed into any provision. Income and access to financial services have been a key element of what the Choose Change programme has identified as being important for offenders on release. Housing needs are an exceptionally urgent priority for many on release, as are health needs, particularly mental health needs. It often transpires that offenders have no registered GP to whom they can turn for health care, and their engagement with the health service has been sporadic.
	The need for a package of interventions, bringing together a number of agencies and players, and beginning that work inside the prison and continuing it as part of a continuing process—not a broken process whereby the prison services does this inside prison and someone else does it post-release—will be an incredibly important feature of what the Government seek to achieve. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding as I say that. I hope that he will be able to reassure us this evening that there will be a continuum of support, not a form of support that begins only as someone leaves the prison gate. There has been a lot of encouraging discussion this evening about through-the-gate models, but we need to understand how those will work within the prison as well as after release.
	We also need to understand that the interventions will be made in the right sequence. Some things can only happen easily post-release. It is quite difficult to do much, for example, about housing until someone is near to the point of release. But other things, such as education and preparing for employment, can be started much earlier. The sequencing of interventions inside prison and post-release will be very important, and I would be grateful if the Minister said something about how he sees that working in these new contracts.
	It will also be important to know how the programme that will be put in place through the contracted provision will work with other programmes already running in the community in relation to criminal justice. That includes how it will work with prolific offender programmes, integrated offender management programmes and programmes such as Spotlight in Greater Manchester, which enables the police and other criminal justice agencies and social services to keep close tabs on those in the community, perhaps not serving sentences but known to the system. How does the Minister envisage those different community-based initiatives will be linked into what is being proposed?
	The Minister will also want to look carefully at the learning from Choose Change, which shows that intervening with offenders who have long histories of offending behaviour is particularly challenging. Some offenders who are serving their eighth, 10th, 15th or even their 20th short custodial sentence will be particularly difficult to work with on release. Therefore, it would be useful to understand how the Minister envisages these contracts being able to cope with, on the one hand, those who may have had one experience of custody, where it is to be hoped that with good post-release supervision they could be quickly taken off the track of offending behaviour and we could see some effective rehabilitation, and on the other hand, those who may have 10, 15 or 20 years of offending history. The lessons from Choose Change
	are that that is a very challenging group of offenders to work with, and simply wrapping some fairly basic post-release supervision around them is unlikely to be sufficient to change the course of their offending behaviour.
	How does the Minister envisage the contracts being structured to incentivise inter-agency working and in particular how working with women offenders will be made financially attractive to providers, which has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members?
	I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee—I will return his compliment by saying that I rarely disagree with him—that there are many good examples of women’s organisations and centres producing extremely strong support programmes for women offenders. In Greater Manchester we have the extremely successful Women MATTA—Manchester and Trafford Taking Action—initiative, which has worked with the Pankhurst Centre, the local authority, the probation service and so on. However, many of those women’s projects are now under severe funding pressure. They are not cheap to run. I hope that the Chair of the Select Committee agrees that women’s special needs and circumstances mean that cut pricing will not necessarily be very effective for women offenders. I am therefore keen to hear whether the Minister is confident that the structure of the contracts will reward providers for working with the especially challenging circumstances faced by women offenders and how they will be incentivised to make use of the very good practice and experience of the women’s centres across the country that have been delivering such programmes in recent years.
	In conclusion, I must say on behalf of the Greater Manchester probation trust and a number of Opposition colleagues that our opposition to giving the Bill a Second Reading is not the result of wholesale opposition to introducing a mix of private and voluntary providers, which has been a feature of the effective working we have seen in Greater Manchester and across the country in recent years. We are concerned that there is little evidence that that particular approach to wholesale contracting out with an arbitrary cut-off point at the level of medium to high-risk offenders is the right way to structure the participation of private and non-statutory providers. There seems to be little opportunity for the very good programmes that have been run by the public probation service to compete effectively in a rapid time scale and continue to be major players in the provision of the services that the Government are now seeking to introduce. There are real concerns that strong local relationships and structures will be disrupted by the bidding process. Finally, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Justice Secretary said, there are real concerns about the risk consequences for the public. I hope that the Minister can offer more reassurances in that regard than we have had so far this evening.

Lorely Burt: The Bill will enact the provision set out in the coalition agreement to
	“introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending”.
	It is supported by both partners in the coalition. I think that it is an ambitious Bill, and one that is sorely needed.
	The offenders who are most likely to reoffend on release from prison are precisely the ones targeted in the Bill—those serving 12 months or less—but until now those people have received no help at all: they are just let out of the prison gates with the princely sum of £46 in their pocket. They need support. They need somewhere to stay, gainful employment and a dedicated professional concerned with their welfare.
	The power to make contractual arrangements with any person or body to provide probation services was set out in the Offender Management Act 2007, but the previous Government never saw fit to bring it in. What a pity. How many lives could already have been turned around since 2007 if more offenders could have had the kind of support we are bringing in only now?
	The basics of the Bill have already been outlined by Secretary of State, and I certainly do not intend to go over them again. I will use the time available to address some of the concerns that have been put to me, and which I in turn have put to the Secretary of State and his team.
	The Secretary of State has already explained that the provisions set out in clause 1 had already been debated and agreed under the previous Government in relation to the 2007 Act. If this Government are happy to accept those provisions, I am unable to see why, when we have consensus on both sides of the House, we need to legislate again. We are using the powers already given to us by the previous Labour Government to unlock resources from the private, charitable and voluntary sectors while opening up support to offenders who have served prison sentences of less than 12 months. Even if we were to accept the clause, I do not believe it would be particularly helpful. It is drafted very widely, and my understanding is that even if we were to accept as it as drafted, many subsequent small changes would need the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
	On drug testing, I have been approached by DrugScope, which is concerned that by imposing drug testing under supervision for a 12-month period for short-term offenders we are
	“setting them up to fail”,
	because they will have more opportunities to fall foul of the system, be re-incarcerated and start the whole cycle all over again. That could be the case, except for two factors. First, magistrates will have a wide range of options open to them, including taking no action at all. However, drug testing will alert supervisors to the problem so that remedial help can be given. Secondly, they would normally have to fail a test several times before action would be taken against them. It is understood that drug addicts have lapses, and the aim is to help, not hinder, their progress under rehabilitation. That is already a condition of the existing licence, so it is not a material change.
	Concern has been expressed about the inclusion of class B drugs in the testing regime. After all, many people who take drugs such as marijuana do not offend just to feed their habit. The fact is that there is still a strong correlation between ex-offenders who go on to reoffend and the consumption of class B drugs. For example, people might go back to their old haunts to obtain them and take up associating with other offenders. Some 48% of offenders who go on to reoffend use class B and C drugs in the month before custody, compared with 30% who never used drugs before imprisonment. Why tempt fate?
	Another area of concern relates to the assessment of risk, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned. The fact is that risk can fluctuate wildly at times of chaos in someone’s life. There seems to be a belief in some quarters that community rehabilitation companies will be assessing the risk category of murderers, rapists and paedophiles. My understanding is that that is not the case. All those categories will remain the responsibility of the new national probation service. Furthermore, the oversight of all risk assessments in the low and medium-risk categories will remain the overall responsibility of the national probation service. A condition of tender acceptance is that the organisation has properly qualified people in place to assess changing risk.
	Many concerns have been expressed about who will run the system, who the bidders will be and what real value they will be able to add to what is already an exceptional probation service for longer-term offenders. Let me say that now I would be dismayed if my Government contemplated considering a bid from any organisation that was under investigation for defrauding the taxpayer on other outsourced services. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is a fair question: if the existing probation service does such a good job, why introduce other players into the field? Why not just extend the existing service?

Jenny Chapman: The hon. Lady is making a very carefully considered speech, and the Minister has also heard her concern about G4S and Serco and their ability to compete for contracts. Will the Minister this opportunity to confirm that they will not be able to bid for those contracts?

Lorely Burt: It is above my pay grade to comment on the Minister’s thoughts about the complex circumstances with regard to a specific contractor. He has, however, heard what I said and the “Hear, hears” of my honourable colleagues.
	To return to the widening of the service, the Government’s answer is that introducing the private sector and competition to the market will drive down costs, which will release the money to widen the service to those shorter-term offenders who get little or no supervision at present. I hope that that equation will work. We are not privy to the analysis the Government have used. I am prepared to go with it, because I want this new system. I want short-term prisoners to be looked after on release and to have the opportunity to turn their lives around, and I want society as a whole to benefit from reduced reoffending.
	What sort of organisations will they be? What does the private sector know about finding homes and jobs and helping ex-prisoners build new lives? My understanding is that the new organisations will probably be consortiums of private businesses, charities and not-for-profit organisations. A lot of tonight’s debate has been about whether the probation trusts will be able to tender for private sector contracts, but I understand that it is not appropriate for them to do so, because they are Government funded and such contracts involve risk. However, could my hon. Friend the Minister explain under what circumstances existing probation trusts or, indeed, existing probation officers could join consortiums, because their expertise will be in high demand and highly valued?
	There are other concerns about whether the private sector will manipulate the system for gain. It is, after all, in it to make a profit. I hope that my Government
	have learned from the past failures of other privatised schemes under, perhaps, both Labour and Conservative Governments. I hope that grass-roots organisations will not be pushed, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has said, into less-than-good deals for the delivery of their part of the programme.
	The programme must deliver real results. We know that the best schemes of this nature have achieved up to a 12% decrease in offending rates, and I hope that consortium bids will approach that best-in-class target. The percentage of the payment at risk is also very important. It must be a substantial proportion of the fee in order to drive the consortiums into putting everything into working together so as to enable offenders who want to turn their lives around to be able to do so.
	Finally, I want to dwell on the repercussions of the changes for those who work in the probation service, because they are anxious that they will find themselves either under the constant stress of having to deal with high-risk offenders or, potentially, out of a job altogether. I am assured that the need for our excellent probation officers will be greater than ever and that there will be more work for them to do, not less. Those who do not want to work with high-risk offenders will find that their skills and expertise will be welcomed in the community rehabilitation centres to which they can be transferred. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline the scheme under which those transfers will take place? I understand that it is a Cabinet Office scheme that is at least as good as the TUPE transfer, but I would be grateful for any clarification.

John McDonnell: The unions involved have consistently asked that that be inserted directly into the Bill itself. Does the hon. Lady support that?

Lorely Burt: I understand that the Government have already done a fair amount of consultation. I am not aware of the exact way in which the unions are feeding into Government, but I know that the Government value the unions very much and will take into account their points and their wisdom.
	The probation officers who elect to stay will find that not all their work will involve high-risk prisoners. Forty per cent. of their work is based in the courts and in inspecting approved premises. In some models, the work of probation officers is divided, so some of them already do the vast majority of their work in supervising high-risk offenders. As long as they are not forced into such work, that seems fair enough.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have been helpful. I am listening carefully to the concerns being raised and I look forward to working with organisations associated with the probation service and with the unions in order to ensure that once the Bill has been through Committee, it will be as robust and effective as possible.

Mike Wood: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), but I want to go back to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who is no longer in his place. He regretted the fact—he said it was a great shame—that we could not all come together in agreement on this Bill. I would have thought, however, that by the time he spoke it was totally apparent—it certainly is now—that, on the issue of reducing recidivism,
	which would be beneficial to all parties and to the whole of society, there is enormous agreement on both sides of the House that supervision of and support for petty offenders should have been introduced a considerable while ago, certainly under the previous Government. I, like many others, regret that they did not find the money to do that.
	I also think that there is almost a consensus that, in some cases, it would be beneficial to have extra licence requirements for those who have served sentences of up to two years. I think, therefore, that there is a great deal of consensus about what we are told is the whole corpus of the Bill. Where the consensus falls down is on the means by which to achieve those high ideals and aspirations.
	None of what the Government say they want necessitates the privatisation of the probation process and the destruction of our first-class professional probation service. Indeed, as we have heard repeatedly throughout the debate, if the Government were serious about their objectives, they would be turning to the probation service, not undermining it. They would be looking to the people who have proved that they can deliver those kinds of objectives, not doing the very reverse.
	The Government should be looking to services such as my own in west Yorkshire, which consistently rates among the best. I place on record my thanks to Karen Ledger and Andrew Sinclair from that service for their briefings to me, which have been extremely useful, and to Gail Wilson, a constituent of mine who wrote to remind me that in 2013 alone the West Yorkshire service has received the Investors in People gold award, is the only trust in the Stonewall top 100 employers index and has won three Butler Trust awards, and that, at the same time, between 2005 and 2013, it reduced reoffending by 14%. As we have heard, every probation trust throughout the country has met and continues to meet every target that the Government have set. The Government rate them good or better than good. That is why the consensus falls down.

Jenny Chapman: My hon. Friend rightly points out that trusts are consistently awarded good or excellent ratings on inspection. Does he agree that now is the time to raise the bar and ask more of our trusts, such as asking them to deal with short-term prisoners, and not to be abolishing the very trusts that are performing so highly?

Mike Wood: That is exactly the way forward. Were those extra requirements to be introduced, the probation service would meet them. Despite the attempt to obscure the reality of the Government’s plans, we learn that the probation service will not even be given the opportunity to do so, for some completely fallacious reason to do with not risking public money. That comes against the background of a Bill that will risk £20 billion of public money by giving it to untried and untested private companies. It is true that were the extra responsibilities and work to be offered to the probation service, it would meet the challenge.

Jeremy Corbyn: In my hon. Friend’s discussions with West Yorkshire probation trust, were any concerns raised about the work load of probation officers? My intuition is that it has gone up a great deal and that trusts have
	delivered incredible results because of that. Obviously, the whole service is put at risk if officers are put under too much pressure to achieve the results that are required of them. The stress levels for probation officers are certainly very high.

Mike Wood: The large case loads of probation officers is a continuing concern. There is concern across the board about the proposals, but the work load for probation officers and probation trusts is a matter of record, as is the fact that they have in the recent past cut their costs. They have become more efficient, not less.
	There are other problems with the proposals. They are untried and untested. The Secretary of State is now at his banquet and we all hope that he enjoys it enormously. In the first week that he was in post—before he even knew where his desk was—he cancelled out of hand the two planned pilots, which would have given us the evidence base by which to judge the proposals.
	Payment by results, which has been lauded this afternoon, is unique in criminal justice systems throughout the world. By definition, therefore, we have very little evidence on the efficacy or potential of such a system. We do know that when it has been researched, it has not come out too well. For example, the Social Market Foundation, a cross-party think-tank, has said that even if the private companies reduce reoffending rates by more than 3% and achieve the payment-by-results reward, that would be limited to a reduction of 5% as anything more than that would require huge investment in rehabilitation programmes. It states that most companies would make their profit by cutting costs on staff and interventions, allow reoffending rates to rise by 3%, if necessary, and rely on the fee for service to produce their profits.
	The myth has been perpetuated today that payment by results will have an enormous enervating and driving effect on the private companies who take part. We know that that is nonsense. The Government started with the intention that 30% of the fee should be related to results. We know that in the so-called negotiations, that was reduced to less than 10%. As the think-tank points out, the companies will earn a vast amount of their money by winning the contract. That is how they will make their profit. To extend the payment beyond that would be a bonus. Any suggestion that payment by results can have that effect therefore flies in the face of what will actually happen.

Lorely Burt: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s visionary understanding, because I have no knowledge of the reduction to less than 10%. I put the example of the 3% straw man to the Justice Secretary and his colleagues. That percentage was described to me as “noise in the system”. In other words, 3% either way would not be indicative of strong work. Should the targets not only not be met, but go backwards, my understanding is that there would be—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Interventions must be very short. The hon. Lady has made a speech already, and I am bothered about the time.

Mike Wood: The hon. Lady referred to “noise in the system” and I was beginning to understand what she meant. She has already made her speech.
	I was suggesting that the companies, rather than being motivated by the wonderful new system of being paid only by results, will find a way to operate in which so-called results are unimportant in determining how much profit they make. That might be difficult for the hon. Lady to accept, but we ought to consider the kind of companies that the Government are talking to and that will be central to the new way of organising the probation service.
	Many attempts have been made to downplay that point. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, among others, said that we cannot make judgments about G4S on the basis of minor indiscretions because it has 74,000 employees. Companies that engage in Government contracts and then defraud the Government, that make claims for transporting prisoners who are dead or for providing services to people who have long since left the system and that are under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office are not the kind of companies that the Government should consider offering further contracts to. Although the Minister was offered the opportunity earlier to tell the House that the two companies that are under serious investigation will be debarred until cleared, he has failed, yet again, to give that assurance. Apparently, companies that behave in that disreputable and dishonest fashion will be considered perfectly acceptable to play a part in the new system. I find that completely unacceptable.
	As recently as today, we have heard more evidence of the performance of G4S. Three of its members falsified documents and were guilty, as far as I can see, of perjury. Judge Mostyn said:
	“The three officials behaved disgracefully”.
	He added:
	“When agents of the state falsify documents it undermines, if not fatally then certainly very seriously, the trust of the people in the operation of the rule of law. It makes no difference if, as here, the agents are private contractors to whom the secretary of state has outsourced her powers. Corruption by state officials is insidious and corrosive.”
	That was this week’s horror story; last week’s was about the torturing of prisoners.

John McDonnell: It is important that we are aware of what happened today. The judge found that G4S had redacted papers that took out information and evidence that the person had been tortured and that therefore that person was eventually deported back to a place that had put his life at risk.

Mike Wood: Absolutely. We are talking about people who collude with torture, and allegations that people are torturing prisoners in their care. Apparently, however, those people are perfectly acceptable and might play a part in privatising our probation service out of existence. We could, of course, also look at Serco, which is one of the other main contenders.
	In spite of what the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson)—who is not in his place—said earlier, the experience of Serco in managing the London unpaid work scheme is instructive. Reports from that scheme and other parties working, or hoping to work, in partnership with Serco—partnership is crucial in this area of our service—state that they have huge difficulties getting through to Serco’s helpline when they need to speak to it about any issue relating to an individual offender. They also said that Serco has failed to provide adequate information to offenders and probation staff, leading to
	unnecessary costs to the taxpayer through breach orders and subsequent court costs, and that previous good relations in partnerships have been destroyed by the actions of that private company. In spite of attempts to downplay such issues, those are the kinds of company that will win these contracts should they be let in the way that we are told they will be. We will have G4S responsible for probation, and Eddie Stobart responsible for legal aid.
	The hon. Member for Solihull again used the R-word when she assured the House that both parts of the coalition are up for this revolutionary change. We need not revolutionary change, however, but testing, piloting and evaluation, and we need a far more cautious approach for two reasons, the first of which is the danger to the public, which has been mentioned extensively during the debate. I am in the Chamber representing 120,000 people —men, women and children—in my constituency, just as every other Member is doing. I have a responsibility to look to their safety, and these proposals will lessen that safety. My constituents will be more likely to become victims of crime as a result of dangerous, volatile, difficult-to-predict, sometimes professional criminals and offenders being supervised by untrained, unqualified, poorly paid, temporary, unmotivated, so-called probation staff. There is an enormous danger to the public inherent in and right at the heart of these proposals.
	Secondly, I think that so far in the debate—I have been here since the beginning—no one has mentioned the danger to the criminal justice system. There is the idea that we can take on work with at least another 60,000 offenders a year and that the whole system will not become swamped, even though we are cutting resources at the same time—well, we are told that it will be within the same cost envelope, but that is 40,000, 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 extra offenders a year to be dealt with within that same cost envelope. I am trying not to say that this does not add up, but it does not add up, does it?
	We need a much more cautious approach because the Bill is being introduced with the lie that it is about high-minded aspirations to provide a service for petty offenders, those on short-term sentences and the like. We know, however, that the proposals are a blatant attempt to take public money and transpose it into the coffers of private companies. We also know what happens if we introduce legislation on that basis. Think of the Child Support Agency. How many years has it taken to get the CSA—which was introduced by the previous Tory Government, on a lie—back to something fit for purpose? How many lives have been ruined? How many injustices caused? Yet that is exactly what is being proposed in the Bill.
	I have considerable concerns about the Bill, and to conclude I would like to place on record a few of the issues that cause me particular concern. First, the Government’s own impact assessment is one of the most vacuous documents that I have read for a long time. There is no costing anywhere in it: “We don’t have to cost it because we know what the cost will be, but we are not going to tell you. If we told you, the private companies involved might know.” There are estimates and guesstimates about the implications for the number of offenders, including those in breach of an order or going back to prison—the spectrum is so wide that it is rather like the weather report: “Tomorrow, there’s going to be weather.”
	We are told that 600 extra prison places will be needed —we are talking about a new prison. We were told as recently as last month that in a prison estate of 85,000 places, there were 800 vacancies on the day in question. In fact, earlier in the debate, we were told that the figure is now down to 600. Is every one of those places to be filled by someone in breach of an order under the proposals? Surely not, yet that is the logic of 13,000 to 17,000 extra breaches leading to 600 extra prison places being needed. Any suggestion that that will be achieved by the expenditure of £15 million of extra public funds is, as again we all know, nonsense.
	The proposals on drugs and drug testing deserve a debate of their own. We have heard an enormous amount of nonsense about what will be achieved by drug testing, and by the requirement to appear and private organisations that can drug test if they choose to. They will, of course, have to bear the cost, so we can be fairly sure that they will not choose to test very often. A Government Member has said that extending testing to class B drugs was to catch people who are on cannabis. That might be a laudable aim in all kinds of ways, but to what effect in terms of reoffending? The Blenheim project in London—a drug and alcohol project—has said that the measure seems
	“to be based on a misplaced belief that comparatively widespread use of cannabis amongst prisoners indicates a strong link to offending behaviour”,
	yet the UK Drug Policy Commission—no less—reports that
	“users of other drugs have much lower rates of offending than those who use heroin and crack and are less likely to have committed a crime to get drugs or when under the influence of drugs”.
	If we are not careful, petty offenders who have been released from prison on licence and who have amended, or who are coming to grips with, their offending behaviour, will be caught out by testing for cannabis. It will be found in their system and they will go back to prison. How does that save money? How does that improve the situation for that offender or for society?
	If the Minister had read any one of the three volumes of prison diaries of his erstwhile colleague, Lord Archer, he would know that what happened in the prison system when it introduced mandatory drugs testing will happen outside the prison system. If a prisoner has a drug inside his or her system that can be discovered for four weeks, they will move to a drug that cannot be discovered in that time. That is what has happened in our prison system where, as was reported recently, it is easier to get crack cocaine than a bar of soap. Prisoners have opted to move from cannabis to heroin. That is what will happen outside. What on earth is that about?
	DrugScope, which has been referred to and which is probably the leading independent centre for drug expertise, has expressed enormous misgivings, as has just about every other organisation involved with drug addicts. They work daily to achieve results. The Government will not listen to probation trusts or probation officers, but those organisations are another group of experts doing the job that the Government believe they know better than.
	We are told that a national probation service will be formed. We should remember that it will be responsible for the most serious 30% of offenders—the murders and rapists and the like to which the hon. Member for
	Solihull has referred. It will be responsible for multi-agency public protection arrangements and for breaching, yet it will be based regionally. We are going to tear the heart out of the relationship between officers and the serious offenders. The larger geographic area will make a difference.
	I have been a probation officer and can tell hon. Members that getting a probationer to appear in my office was the first part of the job. What if I move the office 50 miles or 100 miles further away? Does anyone believe that that would improve the chances of the probationer appearing? Does anyone consider that it will lead to less offending? It will not. Let us not forget that such offenders are not petty offenders, but dangerous people. I therefore have grave doubts. Are we setting up the so-called national probation service—the public part that picks up the bits that the private sector does not want, cannot handle, has failed with and so on—to fail?
	The Ministry of Justice has said that the Bill encapsulates
	“a complex, large-scale change programme to be”
	introduced and
	“completed within an aggressive timetable.”
	The situation is that what works will be replaced by what will not work, on the basis of an ideological hunch from the Secretary of State. Here in the House on 9 January—do hon. Members remember?—he said:
	“Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]
	The Secretary of State himself told us that that was the basis and justification for doing away with the two pilots that would have given him an evidence base. Even though he was new to his job, he knew in the first week that they would not have given him an evidential basis for anything of the kind.
	In last week’s debate, several Members recited the number of incidents of reoffending in any one year, and one of them said, “Something has to be done.” That is cry of the impotent and the powerless the world over. It has now apparently become the watchword of the Government with regard to the criminal justice system. That just will not do. We deserve much better, and the public need and deserve much better. The Government have to rethink this proposed legislation radically.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are six speakers left and an hour and a bit to go, so I will have to introduce a limit of 11 minutes.

John Glen: It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. We are enjoying an interesting discussion on the principles behind the Bill, and we have benefited from hon. Members on both sides of the House sharing their considerable experience. I pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who raised sensible issues regarding clarification on how probation trusts might participate in what is envisaged by the proposed legislation.
	I welcome the Bill and the Government’s commitment to tackling high reoffending rates while being attentive to public protection and the need for justice for victims of crime. Some of the statistics we have heard this afternoon have been striking, with 58% of offenders with sentences of less than 12 months reoffending. That reoffending is costing the economy between £7 billion
	and £10 billion a year. There is an urgent need to tackle reoffending, and robust reform of the system is required if we are to achieve that. It is a tragedy for too many people and too many communities that for too long this issue has not been addressed effectively.
	The Government’s approach to the two major aims of the Bill is absolutely right. First, it is right to open up the system to voluntary and private providers who can compete to provide better value for the taxpayer while maintaining and streamlining a public national probation service for high-risk offenders. I have listened carefully to the concerns regarding the demarcation of high-risk offenders and movement between categories and it would be helpful if the Minister underscored those points. Secondly, it is right to make the unprecedented move to put in statute a minimum of 12 months combined supervision and licence for offenders who have served sentences of less than 12 months.
	In the time available, I would like to focus on two areas of the Bill: the assumptions made in rehabilitation, and the calibration of the payment by results system. The Government, in the White Paper “Transforming Rehabilitation” and in the Bill, have shown a wise awareness of the pattern of drug use and chaotic lifestyles among many offenders, including those who serve short sentences. They are right to want to tackle that within the rehabilitation process. I am pleased to see, therefore, that provision has been made in the Bill for drugs testing and to tackle drug dependency, within the limits set out in clause 15, and that this has been expanded from class A drugs to classes A and B.
	Last March, I visited the Amber Foundation, which does considerable work not only in Wiltshire, my county, but in Devon and Surrey, working with unemployed and homeless young people, many of whom have a history of crime or drug addiction and have come out of the criminal justice system. The foundation is unique in that, rather than running generic programmes, it works with each individual directly in a residential environment. When I stayed there, it was clear that it provided customised support to individuals, including support for independent living, literacy and numeracy courses and practical training. It became clear that the road to long-term independent living, free from reoffending, was often an extremely long and difficult one, as was the road to freedom from drug dependency.

Andrew Griffiths: I apologise, but I was in Committee earlier and could not take part in the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that to help people in the rehabilitation process, prisons need to be drug-free, and therefore does he share my concern that methadone prescriptions in UK prisons have trebled since 2007?

John Glen: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the challenge of freeing people from drugs. As a magistrate for six years, I was deeply frustrated at the recurrent sentencing of the same individuals, knowing that typically someone would have to go through a programme six or seven times. I do not want it thought that Conservative Members think the solution is to send everything out to the private sector. I do not believe that. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) indicates that he thinks that that is what the Government believe, but I do not believe it. We are arguing for a recognition that
	all types of provision can lead to better outcomes; we do not have an ideological fixation that says that the way we have always done it must be the way of the future, but with enhanced targets.
	I want the Government to learn the lessons from my experience at the Amber Foundation. It has a realistic view of what can be done with offenders, particularly young offenders with a history of drug or alcohol dependency, in a limited time frame. Short-term interventions will frequently be insufficient, as what is needed is a long-term investment of focused effort and patience.
	Turning to the calibration of the payment-by-results system, I am aware that any move to a system opened—sensibly, I believe—to the possibility of private provision is looked upon with grave reservations by many working in the sector, but I hope that many of those who have spoken, mostly Opposition Members, will be assured by the Government’s inclusion of a measure of total reoffending in a cohort within the proposed payment-by-results formula. We do not want a system that incentivises providers only to take the low-hanging fruit of easy cases, and I am confident that the Government will deal with that this evening, but in the light of my earlier comments, I think that that needs to be spelled out clearly and that the payment-by-results system will need careful calibration.
	The Amber Foundation explained that the support it could offer young offenders was sometimes constrained by the narrow time conditions attached to funding. A 12-month window for results will not always be sufficient for someone on the long and difficult road to mature, responsible, drug-free, crime-free independent living, particularly those who have had an appalling start in life and spent several years living on the wrong side of the law. Will the Minister therefore consider including an additional mechanism to reward long-term reduction in reoffending in a cohort? Will the Government also look at an option for the sentencing institutions to recommend a longer supervision period within a residential or closer-working environment?
	I hope that the Minister will be able to address those minor points in his closing remarks. I am nevertheless enthusiastic about the Bill’s aims and the framework that the Government have proposed to achieve them. It is vital that we tackle reoffending rates, and the Bill shows that the Government are serious and committed about doing so.
	In these very tricky areas of public policy, it is inevitable that change will be uncomfortable. It has been suggested in a number of contributions today that pilots could be set up across the country, and that we could extrapolate from those pilots the information necessary to design the perfect system. Of course, that would have some appeal if we wanted to avoid taking any risks whatever, but it is unreasonable to suggest that Ministers are oblivious to the history of combined understanding and experience across the probation service and the range of front-line practitioners on the ground.

Jenny Chapman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because he is making a thoughtful and considered speech, but the fact is that the combined experience, as he puts it, is deeply opposed to the reforms, which is why many people were on strike last week.

John Glen: As I said earlier, change is always difficult and controversial, but this is an area that successive Administrations have not really grasped. We have heard about constraints on funding in the last few years of the previous Government, and there might be some truth in that, but the reality is either that we carry on putting things off and using warm words about aspirations for change or that we recognise the statistics and the reality that many communities are experiencing a cycle of reoffending that is not being properly addressed. I will support the Government this evening, despite having made what I hope were constructive suggestions about how this could be moved forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: Last month, the National Association of Probation Officers held one of the biggest ever rallies in Parliament and called on the Government to rethink their proposals to privatise probation. Two large Committee Rooms overflowed with members of the association, but what struck me was that their main concern was public safety. Even their own jobs came third or fourth in the list, which illustrated the fact that their concerns were genuine and heartfelt.
	When the Bill reached its Report stage in the other place, the Government were defeated by a cross-party amendment that now stands as clause 1. The clause states that no reform of the structure of the probation service may be made by the Government
	“unless the proposals have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”
	Before he left the Chamber today, the Secretary of State said that he would reverse that provision in Committee. He wants to do that because it challenges the Government’s intention, which is to bring about wholesale change to probation without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government are planning to do that in spite of a tremendous public outcry and fierce opposition from the probation sector itself and the criminal justice system more widely.
	On Thursday last, I attended a conference in London with representatives of the police forces, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, the fire service, local authorities, housing associations and police and crime commissioners all coming together. These were practitioners who know how these plans will affect community safety and crime levels on our streets. During a discussion on plans to reform probation, not a single person spoke up in favour of the Government’s proposals.
	I understand that the Government intend to use the Offender Management Act 2007 as the vehicle through which to abolish probation trusts and to create new community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service. The 2007 Act, of course, enabled probation trusts to work with third sector voluntary organisations and possibly the private sector to ensure that services could be carried out locally.

Jim Shannon: On that subject, I understand that voluntary organisations have expressed some concern that providers will not be able to park these offenders who have complex and expensive cases. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that this legislation does not address that properly?

Elfyn Llwyd: When something is driven by the profit motive, I am afraid that cherry-picking is going to occur. Common sense dictates that that is likely to happen; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
	The thinking behind the 2007 Act was that the probation trusts would be at the very core of the work, and would effectively be able to commission as and when necessary. It seems to me that that was an entirely different animal from what we are discussing today. Despite the Bill currently stating that parliamentary approval will be needed before any change takes place, the wheels are already turning. At the end of September, probation trusts were given notice of the Government’s intention to terminate their contracts by 1 April 2014. It will soon be too late to step back from these proposals. If we do not, however, in March 2014, 35 trusts will be closed and replaced by a centrally-run public sector service that will work with only high and very high-risk offenders. That will account for just 30% of probation work.
	Probation trust leaders were told in September to undertake a 28-day consultation with their staff on the process of splitting trust staff and resources to create the new community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service. No recommendation on the processes involved or the terms of the resource split has yet been agreed by probation trust employers, unions or the Government. Staff have not been told the terms of any voluntary redundancy scheme or what access will be granted to the local government pension scheme either for existing staff or new recruits. They have been given no information on how their roles will change after the reforms have been introduced. There is a real risk that many of the best staff will leave the profession. Unsurprisingly, then, in October, 84% of NAPO members voted for direct action. This is only the third time that the union has voted for direct action in its 101-year history. It has not taken this step lightly.
	Contractors who offer services for the lowest price regardless of quality will no doubt be responsible for supervising 70% of probation, which is the low to medium- risk offenders who are most at risk of reoffending. Everybody agrees, by the way, that something should be done about them, so it is not an issue of either the status quo or this change. We all agree that something needs to be done, but it is how it is done and who is accountable for the work that matter.
	Nearly 70,000 of the 140,000 cases that will be outsourced to private contractors will be offenders convicted of violent or sexual offences—specialist and sensitive cases that demand expertise and dedication from trained professionals. What they will get instead will be companies that may have a perverse incentive to allow reoffending to increase so that they can increase their profit margin. The gravity of the outcome of these proposals cannot be exaggerated, and all this is happening in spite of the fact that probation trusts are performing as well as they are. The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that all 35 probation trusts have “good” or “excellent” performance levels and are hitting all their targets.
	Reoffending rates for adult offenders under supervision by probation are the lowest they have been since 2007-08. In October 2011, the probation service was awarded the British Quality Foundation gold medal for excellence. Reoffending by those under probation supervision has been falling every single year since 2000. Despite the uncertainty felt by probation staff at present, the
	latest Ministry of Justice reoffending data have shown that the service’s high level of performance is in fact continuing.
	Today, the Ministry released figures showing that 234 serious crimes, including violent and sexual offences, had been committed in Wales by short-sentenced offenders who had been released from prison in 2011. Its rather misleading press release failed to point out that the Government had ruled out the option of handing responsibility for them to the probation trusts in the past. However, both the Ministry’s press release and the one from which the Sunday Express quoted yesterday underline the fact that that is a highly dangerous course of action.
	Instead of entrusting those offenders to the care of the professional probation service, the Government will deliver them to privateers who will be untrained and, no doubt, preoccupied by the profit motive. That hammers home the point that the Government’s reforms represent a victory of dogma over common sense—and there will be problems. As the Magistrates Association has made clear, the management of risk for offenders whose categorisation changes from medium to high and high to medium will be made far more difficult. The association has warned that offenders’ categorisation can change from medium to high rapidly if their circumstances change.
	There is also a real risk that communication gaps will occur between community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service, probably leading to delay and possibly endangering the public. The Magistrates Association has pointed out that the staff of community rehabilitation companies may not be trusted by the police to handle confidential intelligence once they are managed privately. As we have heard, there is even a fear that sentencers will be less inclined to use community orders in the light of previous experiences with privately managed contracts—such as those involving Capita/ALS for interpreters and Serco for prison escorts, not to mention the G4S contract—and that that will result in an increase in the prison population and all the associated costs. We should not forget that probation trusts will be replaced by a model that is largely untested, as the “Transforming Rehabilitation” programme has not been piloted in the UK or in other jurisdictions.
	Even the Justice Secretary’s Department is aware of the risks. The internal risk register, which was leaked to the press but which the Ministry of Justice still refuses to publish, warns that there is a more than 80% risk that the plans will lead to
	“an unacceptable drop in operational performance”
	and to delivery failures.
	I have a copy of another risk register, compiled by Policy Exchange. It states that there is a “very high” risk of a failure to deliver the programme either in scope or within the time scale set by Ministers, as well as a very high risk of a reduction in the performance levels of trusts and community rehabilitation companies during the change process. The register emphasises that that would be due to insufficient capacity and the extent and speed of the structural changes being proposed: changes on which the Ministry of Justice has already embarked. There is also a very high risk of a reduction in performance levels following the departure of the trusts, partly owing to the MOJ’s failure to establish a robust operational design that has been fully tested. Moreover, the register states that there is a danger of the
	“superficial appearance of the programme’s success masking fundamental failures in service design and practice.”
	Those are damning words.
	The reasoned amendment that I have co-signed declines to give the Bill a Second Reading for the reasons that I have cited. No part of the amendment supports the status quo. We need to do something about the 12-months cohort, but the Bill is certainly not the answer. The Government have already been told that there is a common-sense answer, namely to extend the remit of the probation service so that probation trusts can supervise offenders sentenced to less than 12 months in prison. However, the Government have chosen not to do that.

Jeremy Wright: I understand that that is what the hon. Gentleman wants, but can he explain how it would be paid for?

Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that it could be paid for by the delivery of some savings here and there in other parts of the budget.

Jenny Chapman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister might like to consider this: about a third of the budget of probation trusts is top-sliced, which they are unable to control, and which pays for things like estates, and it might be better employed in delivering rehabilitation services?

Elfyn Llwyd: I accept what the shadow Minister says, but I want to say something to the Minister. I respect him as a Minister who does engage with people when they debate with him; I have great regard for him for that. However, I have to say to him that given that he does not know the cost of this farrago he is going into, he should not ask me about costs. [Interruption.] Well, it is first of all incumbent on him, being in government, to come up with figures, not to test figures put forward from the Opposition Benches.

Jeremy Wright: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; I know he is short of time. The point is that I know how I will pay for it, but he does not. [Hon. Members: “How?] I will pay for it by the competition process. It is very interesting: the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), speaking for the Opposition, thinks we can do this through “estates”. Would the right hon. Gentleman be comfortable with the closure of probation premises, because that is what “estates” means?

Elfyn Llwyd: There could be some realignment, and there could be some savings here and there, of course, but there would have to be some increase in probation staff; that is an obvious point. As the Minister knows well, every change costs money and the better change would be to extend the remit, put in more properly trained probation officers and start from that point, not risk public safety in the awful way he and his colleagues are now doing.
	I urge everyone who respects the probation service and who wants to ensure public safety to vote for this reasoned amendment today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I now drop the time-limit to 10 minutes, and I hope we do not lose too much more time.

Paul Maynard: I shall try not to lose us any more time. I always seem fated to be called to speak in a debate when a time-limit has been applied. Also, I usually seem to speak to an empty Chamber, but I have a few Members to speak to today.
	It is a pleasure to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, and there have been some useful contributions so far. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), I regard myself as a critical friend of these proposals. No one can dispute the figures, and I make no apology for arguing that something must be done. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) appeared to suggest that that was a bad approach. I think that when we have a cohort of prisoners who are getting no rehabilitation support because their custodial sentence is less than 12 months, something should be done. I think there is general agreement on that on both sides of the House. We cannot go on giving people £46 cash-in-hand and just hope for the best. That is why these proposals are an important first step.
	None the less, I recognise the level of concern that exists on both sides of the House and in the wider community, which is interested in these issues, not least the Prison Reform Trust, of which I am a trustee. There is a deep underlying concern that these proposals may inadvertently lead to an increase in the prison population as sentencers play safe and send people to custody in order to access rehabilitation services that they fear may not be available if they go for a community sentence. That is a genuine fear that we have heard expressed today, and I would like the Minister to try to nail it. What guidance can he issue to the judiciary and magistrates to remind them that existing sentencing guidelines will remain in force, so custody remains an option only when the offence justifies it? Furthermore, can he ensure that that guidance makes it clear that the level of support available to an offender does not vary depending on whether it is in a custodial or a community setting?
	Those assurances would help many who are concerned that these proposals may lead to an increase in the prison population, and it will underline that these reforms should not be portrayed as being to the detriment of community sentences. Indeed, given these concerns, I would welcome hearing from the Minister how he sees community sentencing playing a greater role in the future.
	We have also heard a lot about the probation service’s fears about the changes, and I want to raise a couple of points that may alter the balance of the debate somewhat. For a very long time now the probation service has argued for parity of esteem, within the Ministry of Justice, with the prison sector. The 35 local probation trusts have never felt that they have argued with one voice in the way that the prisons sector can in the Ministry of Justice. Creating a national probation service, and creating a probation institute to enhance that profession’s qualifications and opportunities, is a good thing. It provides an opportunity for the thousands of well-respected, highly professional probation officers who are out there.
	We can all refer to excellent voluntary organisations that engage in rehabilitation work. As Christmas is coming, I can recommend Fine Cell Work. It produces excellent embroidery, cushions and needlework, which
	can be fantastic for relatives or friends. I suggest that hon. Members visit its website today. Fine Cell Work has a purpose, because it trains people for a career after they leave custody. The Clink is another good example of an excellent voluntary organisation. It is about to open its third restaurant inside a prison, at HMP Brixton—perhaps we can all go for a Christmas dinner at some point, if it opens early enough. Its reoffending rate is 12.5%, which is one that many would dream of in terms of this debate.
	I recognise the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides that the smaller community groups may struggle to cling on in this new competitive environment. A fortnight ago I made this point, but I will make it again: Ministers and Opposition spokespeople must look carefully at what is being proposed by Clinks, which is the trade body for the hundreds of voluntary providers in our prison system. It has some specific proposals about where risk can be located in the supply chain to enable more of these many smaller groups to play a crucial role. That particularly relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the smaller groups that help women offenders and other minority groups of offenders. That is an important thing and I hope that the Minister can respond to it.
	The speed of reform is certainly daunting and ambitious, and I would be naive not to suggest that. In a way, it makes me think of the work capability assessment, although I would rather not necessarily have to do that. The previous Government sensibly asked Professor Harrington to undertake regular reviews into specific aspects of the WCA that were causing concern—one year it was mental health, another year it was fluctuating conditions. That tweaked the WCA to improve it, perhaps not to the extent that Labour Members might like but it was a useful self-correcting mechanism to improve a process. I would very much like to see something similar in this area. I recognise that we have Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation, but how will the Minister task it to provide regular reviews on the progress of these reforms, identifying thematic areas that might need attention? Such an approach would greatly enhance the House’s confidence that these reforms will be properly scrutinised and improved as they go along. The iterative element to these proposals will be crucial, just as it was on the WCA.
	I am also highly concerned about the potential for large numbers of breaches, with the impact assessment talking about a need for 600 extra places and a cost of £16 million. Nobody who is concerned about the size of public spending should treat that lightly. I want to hear a bit more from the Minister about how we can ensure that breach is not an automatic conveyor belt. Provision was made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to allow offenders to go before a court to explain why they did what they did and then the court would have the option to do nothing if it thought that what it had heard so convinced it. Disappointingly, I understand that that was not commenced—indeed, it was removed in the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Will the Minister say whether that can be looked at again to ensure that we do not have this automatic escalator of breaches, whereby we end up with more people in prison than should be there? I am particularly concerned about the much younger age group, who often have learning disabilities or
	communication delay of some sort. They often seem to be in a Catch-22 situation, where they have a complex set of requirements placed on them which they cannot possibly hope to understand. I know the Government, in the other place, made a commitment in response to Lord Bradley to have “easy read” statements of what the requirements are going to be. Can the Government update us on the progress of that, because I fear that without them we will see far more breaches that cannot be explained in front of a court to the satisfaction of the court?
	Also, I remain slightly concerned by the role youth offending teams will play in the new landscape. Someone turning 18 while in custody, having been sentenced as a minor, will be transferred to the national probation service. For many of the vulnerable young people in my constituency, that will be quite a culture shock.

Jeremy Wright: I am conscious of the time and that I might not have time to get to it later, so I can give my hon. Friend the instant reassurance that in the case of the individuals he is describing, a decision will be made in each case about whether it is more appropriate for the national probation service or, indeed, the CRC to manage the case or for the youth offending team to continue to do so.

Paul Maynard: I thank the Minister for that response and hope that the youth offending team will still have a voice in that process rather than just being passive.
	Most importantly, in terms of the numbers involved, we all frequently discuss the role that mental ill health plays in causing offender behaviour. The numbers in prison with a mental health diagnosis, an addiction problem or a dual diagnosis is significant. It is striking that, despite the fact that we have a specific mental health rehabilitation order, for the last year for which I have figures only 1% of disposals consisted of such an order—that is only 783. That cannot be because we are not aware of the problem; clearly, we are, and many detailed reports have considered the structural issues that mean that the capacity for meeting that need simply is not there.
	Bearing in mind what we have heard from Members on both sides about cost, as well as the fact that providing treatments for these vulnerable groups costs more, will the Minister consider whether the mental health rehabilitation orders, which might be far more costly, need to be provided in a slightly different way? Otherwise, we might see a repeat of the current situation, where we have the need and the knowledge but do not seem to be able to supply the rehabilitation treatment to the people who most need it.
	Clearly, I have just listed a long line of concerns, as is my way in such debates. None the less, I am highly supportive of the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. I am very supportive of the Minister individually and I join Members on both sides in saying that we know that his heart is in the right place and we trust him to deliver the Bill properly.

John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to my long expertise in this field. Well, my expertise goes back to 1997, and I have dealt with successive Ministers. I am also the
	secretary of the justice unions group, of which the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is the chair.
	Having dealt with probation officers for all that time, I can say that I have never known morale to be so low. There is real fear and anxiety among them and their families about the future. Hon. Members need to recognise that. The strike has been mentioned. People do not go on strike lightly—certainly not in this service. These are dedicated professionals. The National Association of Probation Officers have been pressing for years to be able to supervise those on short-term sentences, and the irony is that that will be used to privatise their jobs. The tragedy is that probation officers have delivered on everything that has been asked of them, and not just on a wing and a prayer—piloted studies have demonstrated their effectiveness.
	I refer Government Members to the briefing from London Councils and the Mayor for London, which demonstrated the local partnerships that had been working in London, as well as the other work that had taken place. I refer also to the briefing on the integrated offender management service, which has been independently evaluated by Sheffield Hallam university. This is where the police, probation and local authorities come together and work with offenders with a high risk of reoffending. Sheffield Hallam’s independent study showed that in 2012-13 the service reduced reoffending by 52%, one of the highest success rates for any scheme. It found that the scheme was economically viable: over five years, for every £1 invested, there was a saving to the taxpayer of £1.59, and over 10 years that would go up to £1.79.
	The Sheffield Hallam university study is not like the Peterborough study. I have a lot of respect for what is going on in Peterborough, but that is a voluntary scheme. People are referred to the Sheffield Hallam university scheme, almost on a mandatory basis. To be frank, we were waiting expectantly for the full results and evaluation of the Peterborough scheme next year. That is what we were promised: an objective assessment of what worked, and evidence-based policy making, which seems to have gone out of the window. It is not that the probation service is not willing to change, reform or expand; it is just that the Government refuse to allow the one organisation that has a proven track record of success to become involved in the supervision of the offenders we are talking about.
	On privatisation, I do not want to go over what has been said about Serco, G4S and the rest of it; I like the example of the privatisation of the court interpretation service. People turned up who could not speak the relevant foreign language. One would have to invent something really creative to enable that to happen. The London community payback scheme has been mentioned; in my area, we have lost invaluable staff and volunteers as a result of the scheme’s mismanagement. Hostel accommodation was privatised but had to be brought back into the public sector because it was so bad. If the question is what happens to staff in future, we should look to the prison privatisations: wage rates in privatised prisons are 23% lower than in state prisons, and the conditions—there are issues with the level of training and high staff turnover—are undermining the service.
	The Chair of the Justice Select Committee mentioned our fear that the market does not exist at the moment. The Opposition are being criticised on the issue of
	energy because there are six major players in that field, and that is not an acceptable market. In the probation market, we may be down to two players. If the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation keeps going, two will almost certainly be taken out of the game, and we will be left with two or three big players. That is not a market; that is not competition. And the argument that competition will find us all the savings is like a belief in Santa Clause or the tooth fairy.
	I heard the argument about mutuals. Probation officers come into the profession not to manage a company but to manage offenders. I like the example of the Government mutual that was set up to administer the civil service pension scheme. The day the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General came to the House to announce that change, the staff who were supposed to be participating in it were outside on strike, because the move was imposed on them, rather than being allowed to evolve.
	I am concerned about costs, because it is quite clear that there is no real prospect of finding the savings through competition; that has been demonstrated in the case of other services. Where will the money be found to pay for the supervision of at least 50,000 to 70,000 additional offenders? There will potentially be 600 in a new prison. I think that there will be significantly more breaches than has been suggested, because we are dealing with people with chaotic lives. More and more people will be banged up. I remember the projections that the professionals gave us for prison growth: we were told that the number would never go above 60,000, but then it reached 80,000.
	Where is the money to be found to pay for all that? I do not think it will come from savings through competition. It will come from where it always does: job cuts, pay cuts, the deskilling of the job, and the undermining of conditions of employment, including the pension. Reference was made to TUPE principles having an effect. We have had this debate time and again. To give assurances to staff, the last Government put a commitment to TUPE in some of their legislation, and that is what we would expect to find in this Bill to reassure professional staff.
	We are requiring probation officers, and possibly private sector staff, to operate in a completely different environment. I welcome some elements of the legislation relating to supervision of those dependent on drugs, and other provisions, but to be frank, we met drug organisations in the drug and alcohol forum last week, and it reports exactly what we have heard in discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions. With the devolution of budgets to a local level, drugs services are being cut. Probation officers or private sector staff supervising offenders and seeking to get them off drugs will refer them to services that no longer exist.
	One of my hon. Friends talked about how women will be affected. Reports are coming back from area after area that women’s centres and women’s services are being cut dramatically. We are setting up a system to fail. What does that mean in reality? My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood), who is a former probation officer, hit the nail on the head. We are setting up a system to fail, and in this case failure does not mean that something will not run on time or something may not be delivered on time. This failure
	puts our constituents at risk and it puts individual offenders at risk as well. I shall give one example from my constituency.
	Feltham detention centre has been mentioned. When people come out of Feltham, there is a search by social services departments, probation and so on for accommodation for them. That accommodation is now managed by individual private sector organisations. In my area they have leased individual properties and put young people in those properties, largely unsupervised. One of them that I have been dealing with over the past fortnight is supervised for only three nights of the week. Only last Friday the police were called out twice. A month ago a neighbour had to take one of the young people living in the accommodation into her property because that person had been stabbed by another ex-offender—there is no supervision whatsoever.
	When a system is set up which relies on the private sector and it does not deliver, in this area we are not talking about minor failures. We are talking about significant risk to life and limb of individual ex-offenders and of the general public. I repeat what I said last time and I am deadly serious about this: if any of my constituents are injured or harmed in any way as a result of this legislation, I will come for individual Ministers. I will seek to ensure that they never hold public office again.
	Every warning has been given in this House, time and again by us and by professionals. I remind Members what was said by Liz Calderbank from the inspectorate. She said:
	“Any lack of contractual or operational clarity between the public and private sector providers will, in our view, lead to systemic failure and an increased risk to the public.”
	As chief inspector of probation, she said that
	“the scale and pace of the change is considerable and we are concerned as an inspectorate that it is taken forward and implemented without any drop in performance”.
	When such professionals warn a Government, their warnings need to be taken seriously. I worry, I fear for the safety of my constituents as a result of this legislation.

Richard Drax: Before I start, may I pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? May I humbly say that this is a debating Chamber, not a Chamber to make threats to those on the Front Bench on either side of the House? Perhaps we should stick to talking, rather than threatening people.

John McDonnell: What happens when one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is injured, maimed or murdered as a result of lack of supervision by a private company as a consequence of this Bill? Who does he blame?

Richard Drax: I should be as upset as the hon. Gentleman or any other Member would be if such circumstances were to arise, but I do not believe that threats should be made to individual Ministers. I have made my point and I shall continue.
	I praise the Dorset probation service, which is outstanding. I agree with many of the points that have been raised. I spoke in the Opposition day debate and I agree with many points made by the Opposition
	and by one or two Members on the Government Benches. The probation service has made comments to me about privatisation and the 70% that has been suggested in the House tonight, and there are concerns about this. Will people fall through the gaps? What about careers, as has been asked? There are serious concerns about whether this proposal from the coalition Government will work. All I would say is that something is better than nothing, as we have heard from several good speakers on the Government Benches. We must do something because the reoffending rate is unacceptable.
	Perhaps the situation has become so serious that we should be even more radical than the Government now are. At the young offenders institution on Portland, Sir James Spicer, who was the MP for West Dorset—I am sure some in the House will remember him—has introduced an initiative called the Airborne Initiative. The young men from that young offenders institution are taken out to Dartmoor and for five or six days they are taken day and night across the moors to navigate and learn about team spirit, camaraderie, friendship, discipline—all the things that these reoffenders and many young men and, dare I say, young ladies need.
	Will the private sector and all these good intentions solve the problem? Has it got to such a point that the state needs to be even more radical? Perhaps I could lodge an idea in the minds of those on the Front Bench. How about a third force? I am not talking about making people join the armed forces, because as an ex-soldier myself I know that that clearly would not work, but I have trained young soldiers for two years, and some of them—not all—have arrived at the barracks in a similar state of mind to many young men who are in jail today. But six months later, after the training and the discipline they have received, and the friendship and camaraderie that have been engendered, these are young men one would be proud to die with. The system works.
	So why do we not have a third force in this country? Why do we not put the Border Force and Customs and Excise all under one cap badge, run it on a militaristic basis and into that organisation put young men and women who, on a third warning in the magistrates court—call it what you will—rather than being sent to the young offenders institution in Portland, are given a chance? They can spend two years in the third force or go to jail. If they go to the third force and make a mistake, they end up in jail. Those who are coming to the end of a sentence of, say, six or seven years, are told in year five that they have a choice: two more years in jail or two more years with the third force.
	The third force would be manned by volunteers who made a career on the sea, in the air and on the land—manned to a large extent by ex-service personnel. Rather than give second or third-hand ships to countries like India, those ships can be kept in this country and used for that purpose. Aircraft that may have outlived their usefulness on the front line can be used in the air. Those who have served in the Army can join the third force and represent the third force on the land. I know, because I have seen it work, that when young men and women are given a structure, discipline and hope, they can be turned around. Will all the good intentions of the private sector and the probation service, which, as I said, in Dorset is exceptional, work? The problem we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) costs £7 billion to £10 billion a
	year. If we can grab just 30% or 40% of these young people and turn them around, which I believe we could do, when they leave the third force they can go on to contribute to society. They learn what it is like to be selfless, to give, to work together with other people, and to contribute to their country.
	I very much hope that all these good intentions work, and I welcome something being done to cut the reoffending rate, but we could go much further and be far more radical with the future of our young people, many of whom have no structure at all in their lives. As a Conservative, I do not like the state to get involved, but perhaps the problem is so big that the state must get involved to cut the bill further. The state has the power and the money to provide something that these young people can be put into and given a chance. If the light is turned on, it is so simple. I have seen it happen. People with no hope are given a simple task to do, the structure and discipline within which to do it, and their lives are changed.
	The police, ambulance and fire services ran an experiment with 12 young people aged 14 to 16 years old, out on one of the moors. They had four baddies, let us call them, four who were pretty okay, and four goodies, and they put them all together to spend the night out on the moor. The first task was run by a huge barrel-chested ex-Royal Marine. He said to them, “Right, your first task is to put up your tent.” None of these people had ever seen a tent. It was one of those old ones, with lots of bits and bobs, made of canvas. They stood there looking at it with hands in pockets and phones ringing. Their whole attitude was, “What the hell am I doing here?” Then one of them said, “Staff, could you come and help me?” The sergeant-major said, “Gentlemen, and ladies, gather around. What is the first lesson in life?” They looked at him perplexed. He said, “You’ve just done it: if you don’t understand, you ask.” Within an hour the tent was up.
	The next day I watched all three groups go round quite a challenging assault course. They put the two bad boys with the two ladies and sent them around. The two young men who were the worst offenders—they clearly came across as the worst—were the best at it, and when they finished they went back, without being asked, to help the ladies, who were struggling. They finished the assault course and stood with their shoulders back, inspired. They had been gripped, disciplined and they had achieved something. I am utterly convinced that if that small glimmer of light was pursued they would have a chance in life.
	It is nothing new. It is not reinventing the wheel. I believe that the Government’s intentions are honourable and good, as are the Opposition’s, but will it work, because the problem is so serious? I am afraid that my answer, from my experience of life and from looking around—I have been around a few years—is that it will not, and certainly not to the degree that it should and could.
	Someone said from a sedentary position, “Put them in the Army.” I am not saying that we should put them in the Army; I am saying that many of those young people need what the Army and those sorts of careers engender. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, is a distinguished former officer of the Parachute Regiment. He knows exactly where I am coming from, and I suspect
	that in his heart he knows I am right. We can reach lots of young people if we are more radical and daring and go back to the old-fashioned way of helping people who are in trouble and need our help. I leave that thought with Members on the Front Bench.
	I will support the Bill tonight and hope that it works but, on behalf of the probation service in Dorset, I have some doubts about whether it will be sufficient. As many Members across the House have said tonight, there are genuine concerns that people will fall through the net. That is what worries me. That is the risk element. We have to accept that there is an element of risk, but there is risk in whatever we do. Have we balanced the whole argument to ensure that the risk is as minimal as possible? In this case—I do not like using this expression—only time will tell. I hope for all our sakes that it works.

Lindsay Hoyle: The winding-up speeches will start at 20 minutes to 10.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will bear in mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I need to end in time for the Minister’s reply, which I am looking forward to hearing.
	The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has just given us an interesting vista of a militarised future for young people about which I have some serious doubts. If he wants to consider the consequences of the kind of solution that he proposes, he need look no further than the USA, which imprisons more people than anywhere else in the world per hear of population, has a higher recidivism rate, has more brutality in its prisons and has a very large number of privatised prisons in which unbelievable brutality is carried out against individual prisoners. That does not work; it is not a solution.
	Countries with a very low rate of reoffending are those that invest more in education in the first place, to give young people a better experience of life and better opportunities, and invest more in a prison service for young people that offers psychiatric and educational support and in which measurement is based on the educational improvements and achievements of those young people.
	Members of the Justice Committee, including its Chair, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), visited Denmark and Norway to look at their experiences of dealing with young offenders. They spend far more money on it than we do and have reoffending rates of 20% and less in some cases, because they invest in those people. In this country, we are heading off in another, fairly ludicrous direction by saying that because there is a problem with the service we will hand it over to G4S, Serco and a few other companies that have a proven track record of incompetence and dishonesty, which will be sorted out by the courts.

Richard Drax: I did not suggest at any stage that youngsters should be brutalised in a militaristic fashion in a prison. I am suggesting that they should be taken out of prison and given hope and a structure that gives them a chance in life that otherwise they would not get.

Jeremy Corbyn: We are all in favour of young people having a decent chance in life. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would have heard me suggest that we need to invest much more in young people in school and college and beforehand, so that they gain a wider range of life experiences, greater self-reliance and a greater sense of community involvement. I am concerned that he seemed to base his whole argument on the operations of the military, rather than on a much better form of community service and development.
	I support the reasoned amendment and am pleased that it has been selected. I draw attention in particular to the last part, which points out that
	“the Ministry of Justice’s own internal risk register warns that the Government’s proposals could result in a high risk of an unacceptable drop in operational performance”.
	We on the Justice Committee will start taking evidence on this tomorrow. Despite the Secretary of State’s refusal—and, indeed, that of previous Governments—I think it is high time that Governments start, as a matter of routine, to publish the risk registers of any service for which they propose major change. It is a simple act of transparency on the way in which the Government operates.
	The speed with which this Bill is being pursued is extraordinary. The Justice Committee will take evidence and I hope that we will come up with some conclusions, but that is for the Committee to decide, not me. I hope that any conclusions will be taken on board, but the Bill is going through the House today and has to be out of Committee in three weeks’ time, so there is hardly any time for any considered public discussion or debate or for Members of the Commons to take a proper look at it.
	The fundamental issue is that this is about the Secretary of State’s obsession with the privatisation of services. I cannot forget the day when the Justice Committee visited the Ministry of Justice. When we met the Secretary of State, he had hardly sat down at his desk before he said that he was a complete convert to the idea of franchising out and privatising various MOJ services. There clearly is an obsessive attitude that only the private sector can produce results.
	I am sure that when the hon. Member for South Dorset meets members of the probation service in Dorset, he tells them what a fine job they are doing and what wonderful people they are. That is because they are wonderful people who are doing a fine job, but how are we rewarding them? We are giving them more work to do with fewer resources and putting them in competition, in a race to the bottom, with the private sector, knowing full well that the financial argument will win out at the end of the day and that the private sector will win, with its profits, low wages and inadequately trained or qualified staff, and the public probation service, which all of us are proud of, will be the loser. This Bill is going down a very dangerous road.
	The statistics helpfully provided today by the Library show that the total case load of the probation service in 2003 was 199,000, of which 120,000 cases came from court orders and 80,000 came from pre and post-release supervision. By 2012, the number from court orders had reduced to 114,000, while the number from pre and post-release supervision had gone up to 111,000. There is already a significant change in what is going on.
	The reoffending statistics quoted are from Doncaster and Peterborough. I welcome anything that brings about a better prison service, better education and less reoffending. That has to be a good thing. The Justice Committee visited Doncaster, and it was an extremely interesting experience, but the statistics show that its reoffending rate of over 40% is still way above the national average of about 30%. It is a privately run prison and many of the regime’s liberal aspects are interesting, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions of the company that runs it about the treatment of its inmates.
	I will make one last point because I want to leave enough time for the Front Benchers. Both unions that are involved in the probation service—Unison, which has fewer members from the probation service, and the National Association of Probation Officers, which has more—made a number of strong points in the evidence that most Members have no doubt received from them. The Unison paper makes the point that
	“probation operates as a seamless whole. Splitting the service in two will allow dangerous offenders to fall down the gap between the two parts.”
	Other colleagues have supported that position. NAPO has the same view. I attended its meeting and will conclude with a quotation from it:
	“Napo believes that the proposed…agenda will undermine pubic protection procedures and place communities at risk of harm from poorly managed offenders. It will have a detrimental impact on staff who will have limited senior management support and who will be based many miles away and will have little local knowledge of the area they are responsible for. This will place unnecessary pressures on middle managers and front line staff.”
	This privatising will not save money, but will cost more through higher rates of reoffending, greater danger to the public and, ultimately, more people in prison, not fewer. We should support the reasoned amendment tonight and give—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I tried not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that was a very long quotation. We need to get on to the closing speeches.

Jenny Chapman: This has been one of the better-informed debates in the House that I have had the privilege to take part in, largely thanks to the amendment that was tabled by the Opposition, because it has provided colleagues with the opportunity to debate the sell-off of the probation service. The Bill, which seemed for some time to have gone missing and which it is good to welcome back, does not deal with the sell-off at all.
	We can add this reform to a long list of rushed and regretted legislation, which includes that on the Child Support Agency, the private pensions that were mis-sold, dangerous dogs and the poll tax. All those disasters were foreseen and some had laudable aims, but they were all the personal obsession of a single Secretary of State—spot the coincidence.
	The Bill provides for the post-release supervision of offenders who serve less than 12 months in custody. It makes some changes to community and suspended sentence orders and drug testing. That is all fine. Contrary to the Government’s wishes, the Bill also includes a clause to require the scrutiny of their planned sell-off of the probation service. I will come back to that later.
	As has been said, the Opposition support the introduction of supervision for offenders who serve less than 12 months in custody. We know that supervision and support after release are effective in challenging reoffending and managing risk when done properly. That is why the last Labour Government sought to bring in custody-plus. Offenders serving short sentences who are not currently supervised by the probation service have the most prolific reoffending rate of any group. By extending services to that cohort, the Secretary of State is agreeing that supervision works. We wholeheartedly welcome that view.
	To continue to focus on areas of agreement, other provisions in the Bill will introduce increased flexibility in the structure of community and suspended sentence orders, widen the scope of drug testing after release and introduce a drug treatment order for those on licence. We are happy to debate the merits of those proposals and look forward to examining them in Committee. We also welcome the inclusion of a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of female offenders in commissioning services. That group has been conspicuous by its absence in other legislation and it is welcome to see that trend broken.
	The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), whom I congratulate on supporting the amendment, raised questions over the future supervision of offenders, the risk that they pose and the inevitable dangers that are inherent in the Government’s plans. I am sure that a Committee of the House would be willing to engage with those and many other issues, but I am afraid that there will be no such opportunity if the amendment falls.
	Particularly disappointing is the Government’s determination to prevent Members from having the opportunity to debate the wider, risky upheaval of probation that precedes the Bill’s implementation. The Opposition cannot accept the roll-out of plans that are rushed, untested, uncosted and pose serious risks to public safety. From his speech it is clear that the Chair of the Justice Committee holds serious reservations about the risks of this proposal.
	The Government plan to hand over dangerous offenders, including violent and sexual offenders, to companies with no track record of providing probation services, and to a time scale that those responsible for implementing the changes have described as “unworkable”, “unrealistic” and “unacceptably risky”. The plans will for the first time fragment responsibility for offenders, adding a totally avoidable layer of bureaucracy to decisions on public safety. The proposals have not been tested to see whether they work and have not been subject to parliamentary scrutiny—a situation that clause 1 puts right. Clause 1 provides that the Government may not alter the structure of the probation service unless their plans have been first laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses. It was inserted by Cross-Bench and Labour peers in another place, and when introducing the clause, former chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham, summarised his concerns thus:
	“We all want reoffending to be reduced, but we do not want to see any programme with that end fall flat on its face because understandable concerns about the viability of untried theories have been ridden over roughshod, in the desire to satisfy a party politically directed timetable that pays no attention to practical reality.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 2013; Vol. 746, c. 659.]
	Those debating this issue in the other place agreed with Lord Ramsbotham’s assessment that the Government have so far failed to prove the viability and affordability of the Secretary of State’s plans and voted in favour of putting a brake on proceedings. Many Members agreed with that suggestion of caution, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), yet it has not been heeded. It has since been reported that the Secretary of State does not believe that we should pilot what he describes as “a revolution”. After the severe problems that the Government have recently experienced in the costly roll-out of universal credit, colleagues can join probation chiefs, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee in disagreeing with that rather stupid assessment.
	I hate to break it to the hon. Members for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), but nothing in the Bill requires responsible officers in future to be qualified, experienced or even trained. In summary, Ministers are not at all interested in the competence or quality of provision. Colleagues in the House are not assured that the Secretary of State and his Department can answer questions about the safety of their constituents—questions that the Government do not want to answer.
	Opposition Members are deeply concerned by the lack of detail from the Government on the cost of the Bill. What resources will the Department need to pay for the supervision of 50,000 extra offenders each year, how much will the contracts cost and what percentage will be paid by results? Even more concerning is the lack of knowledge, owing to a disinterest in testing the model on the operational side. For example, how long will it take to swap responsibility for a high-risk, volatile offender between G4S and the national probation service?
	The Secretary of State should be able to come to the House and answer those basic questions, and he should certainly answer them before he asks the House to nod through the sell-off of the probation service. The core of the Bill is welcome, but by cancelling the probation pilots, the Secretary of State has pulled the foundations from beneath it. The Government are abolishing local trusts, preparing to accept bids from providers under investigation for fraud and contracting an untested model in a Department that has repeatedly had rings run round it by G4S and Serco.
	In the light of that, the Opposition are right not to trust the Secretary of State’s gut feeling. There has been no piloting, no parliamentary scrutiny, no commitment that those under criminal investigation cannot bid, no costings and no interest from the Government in the competence of providers. Ministers cannot say that they have not been warned. For those reasons, I hope hon. Members vote in favour the amendment.

Jeremy Wright: It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate. It has been a good and wide-ranging debate, but it is about to reach a very strange conclusion, because
	there is no real disagreement on the Bill’s contents. All hon. Members I have listened to this evening agree—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) mentions clause 1. He is in favour of it, but he is about to vote against it. I am not sure he realises that, or that the effect of the amendment is to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading, including clause 1. I do not believe that the Opposition understand the effect of their reasoned amendment.
	There is good reason for the consensus we have managed to achieve: it is vital that we extend rehabilitation to those sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment or less, who currently receive none. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has put it, the status quo is unacceptable.
	The debate has concentrated not on the contents of the Bill, but on the wider reforms that the Government propose. I accept that we must get important aspects of the reforms right. It is important to have quality standards and to ensure that those who provide the work have properly trained staff. We will ensure that they do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) has said, it is important that there is inspection of all providers, from whatever sector. That, too, will be done.
	It is right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) has said, that risk is dynamic. She is right too that assessments of risk will continue to be done by probation officers in the public sector. There will be contractual obligations on all providing those services to refer back to the public sector if they believe there to be a change in risk.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that it is important to maintain local partnerships in the criminal justice system. They are right. Included among those relationships is the relationship with police and crime commissioners. We will have contractual obligations for all providing those services to participate in statutory partnerships. We will expect more than that. We will expect providers to show us, in the course of the bidding process, how they will engage with all appropriate partnerships.
	Opposition Members have expressed concern that the public bodies, such as the police, will not share information with private sector organisations. I do not know how they think private sector prisons operate currently—institutions that were in place throughout the 13 years of the Labour Government. Exactly those interactions have continued to take place.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) made a number of points. He is right that contract management is important. As I said a moment or so ago, and on exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on the so-called “bid candy” problem, bid assessment is important. It is vital that, when we assess bids, we do so properly for the sustainability of relationships between larger organisations and smaller ones, particularly those in the voluntary sector.
	Hon. Members have made a great many comments on the pace of the reforms, which we discussed two weeks ago in the Opposition day debate. I repeat that I make no apology for proceeding at pace with the reforms because, for as long as we wait, victims will continue to be created as a result of the reoffending that we could otherwise prevent. I do not believe that that is sustainable.
	In answer to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, it is important that we get on with the reforms so that we can give probation officers certainty on their personal futures. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, we fully expect that transfers to the NPS and to community rehabilitation companies in April will be made without any compulsory redundancies and on terms directly comparable with TUPE.
	The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) raised understandable concerns about sentencer behaviour. As he would expect, we have spoken to senior sentencers. A number of points are relevant, a couple of which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys. First, sentencing guidelines remain in place. All sentencers are expected to follow them and sentence to custody only when they believe it is appropriate. Secondly, the same level of supervision will be provided from the same provider whether someone receives a community order or a custodial sentence. There is no distinction and it is important to bear that in mind.
	The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston was right to focus on through-the-gate provision. A broader part of our reforms is to institute what we call resettlement prisons, to enable all prisoners to be met by a rehabilitation provider in the closing stages of the custodial part of their sentence, and then be supported by that same provider through the gate and out into the community. That will provide the continuity she is looking for.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made the point that it is important to design a payment-by-results system that does not involve cherry-picking. We will do that through a combination of mechanisms that will reward those who stop reoffending altogether, but reflect an element of reward for reducing the amount of reoffending in the cohort—that is crucial. It is right that we pick up on the specific needs of women. As I think has been recognised, that is already covered in the Bill.
	There seems to be broad agreement that we need to act, but action has a cost and that cost was too high for custody plus—the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was straightforward in saying that. We propose a simpler system. We propose not just the opportunity for innovation to be brought into the management of offenders—by the voluntary sector, and, yes, the private sector—but, crucially, the opportunity to make the savings necessary to provide for looking after the 50,000 offenders a year who everyone who has spoken agrees should be looked after.
	If not by that method, how should that be done? Those who speak from the Opposition Front Bench have criticised our approach, but offered no alternative. Under pressure, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) tells us that there may be savings to be found in the estates part of the probation budget. I hope she appreciates that that part of the probation budget involves the provision of probation facilities and premises. If she is suggesting closing some, I look forward to seeing a list. I am sure she will explain to the probation service why it is right to close them. The Opposition say this can be done without competition, but they do not say how. They sign up to a reasoned amendment that declines to give the Bill a Second Reading
	“because the implementation of the proposals in the Bill”—
	which I remind the House they entirely agree with—
	“depends on the Government’s proposed restructuring of the Probation Service”.
	If we cannot do it by means of restructuring the probation service, how are we to do it? There is no answer.
	There is, of course, good work being done by the probation service and by probation officers up and down the country. Every time I speak on this subject I say so, and I am happy to do so again. That will still be in the system we are designing, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) is right that it is not true that state sector probation officers are the only ones who can do the job well. That is what is really behind the majority of the opposition to the reforms that we have heard today. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, that the reforms are a triumph of dogma over common sense. It is the other way around: it is the opposition that is a triumph of dogma over common sense—the view that the private sector can never do a good job, regardless of how good the offer may be.
	Serco and G4S have been mentioned many times. I can offer the House this assurance: if Serco and G4S do not come out satisfactorily from the audit processes, which this Government instituted, they will not receive any contracts. Their apparent abuses relate to contracts negotiated by the previous Labour Government, and they took place under their regime. We are the ones sorting that out. The Offender Management Act 2007, passed by the previous Government, is clear: it gives us the authority to pursue the line we are pursuing. They would rather forget that, but they passed the 2007 Act and should know what it says and understand its consequences.
	The Opposition support an amendment they never wrote; they support it in preference to an Act they passed; and they do all of that so that they can vote against a Bill that, broadly speaking, they agree with. What a mess. They should support this Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 213, Noes 269.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

OFFENDER REHABILITATION BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 3 December 2013.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Dawn Primarolo: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 269, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On page 20 of today’s Order Paper, it states that tomorrow’s debate is on the “Abolition of the bedroom tax.” As there is no such thing as a bedroom tax—and I pray in aid page 390 of “Erskine May”, which states:
	“A notice which is wholly out of order may be withheld from publication on the Notice Paper”—
	does that mean that the Opposition day will not now take place?

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Bone, I suggest that you read tomorrow’s Order Paper tomorrow. You will then be able to see the title of the debate, which, I am informed, is in order.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion on a Reasoned Opinion relating to the regulation of new psychoactive substances. —(Mark Lancaster.)
	Question agreed to.

OFFENDER REHABILITATION BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Lancaster.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 251, Noes 125.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Psychoactive Substances

[Relevant Document: 10th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xviii.]

Norman Baker: I beg to move,
	That this House considers that the draft Regulation and draft Directive on the regulation of new psychoactive substances (European Union Documents No. 13857/13 and Addenda 1 and 2 and 13865/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter Eight of the Nineteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xviii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.
	I am pleased that this debate has been called to discuss whether the EU Commission’s proposals for regulating new psychoactive substances, commonly called legal highs, comply with the principle of subsidiarity. I am aware that the other place held its own debate on this issue earlier this evening, following evidence that I provided to one of its European Sub-Committees on 16 October. I also note the European Scrutiny Committee’s report on these proposals, and its questions for the Government. I will be writing to the Committee with detailed answers to those questions shortly.
	I am aware of a dangerous perception held by some that since many new psychoactive substances are legal, they must be safe to consume. This is absolutely not the case, and while research on these substances is limited, the number of people who have ingested them and come to harm demonstrates that doing so is a risky, potentially life-threatening, activity. There is also no guarantee that what is being sold is legal—evidence has shown that around 19% of products sold as legal highs on the internet actually contain controlled drugs.
	The proposals involve a draft regulation and a draft directive, which together seek to enhance the EU’s ability to respond to the threat posed by these substances. We believe the regulation would require all member states to adopt the same level of control for a substance that is causing concern at the EU level, within a tiered framework of low, moderate and severe risk. While a framework for EU-level risk assessment and control of new psychoactive substances currently exists, member states can adopt stronger or weaker controls if they believe this to be appropriate. The directive would expand the definition of what the EU considers an illicit drug to include new psychoactive substances classed as severe risk under the new regulation.
	In recent years, the growing role of these substances in the recreational drug market has presented policymakers and legislators across the world with significant challenges. They are generally synthetic drugs, designed to mimic the effects of drugs listed under the UN conventions and intended to fall outside the law. They are unlikely to have ever been tested on humans, and thus their short and long-term effects are largely unknown. However, the hospitalisations and deaths that have occurred due to the ingestion of some of these substances makes this a problem that Governments across the world cannot ignore, and we certainly do not do so.
	The UK has played a leading role in tackling this threat. Our temporary drug control orders allow substances causing concern to be banned in a matter of weeks. Our forensic early warning system provides the latest intelligence on what substances are available in the UK, and our use of generic definitions under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 allows us to ban entire families of substances. These and other measures have enabled us to ban the majority of such substances seen in the EU and since 2010 we have banned in excess of 200.
	The UK has also provided international leadership in this field. We have sponsored an international early warning system and a platform for sharing data on this threat via the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, as well as sponsoring two resolutions at the UN on the identification and reporting of new drugs.
	Any EU-level action is required to comply with the principle of subsidiarity, meaning that decisions should be taken as close to EU citizens as possible. Article 5 of the treaty of the European Union states that, in areas where it does not have exclusive competence, the EU should only act if two conditions are met: first, where the objectives cannot be achieved by member states, and secondly, where EU-level action can add value by meeting the objectives more effectively. This Government does not believe, and I do not believe, that the EU proposals meet these conditions. In our view, the measures do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.
	To explain why, it is necessary to consider the legal base for the draft regulation. The Commission cites an internal market legal base, on the premise that there is a substantial licit—legal—trade in new psychoactive substances which requires a harmonised regulatory approach. The Government does not accept this premise, as our experience has overwhelmingly been that these substances are sold for recreational purposes and are closely tied to the illegal drugs trade, with only a small handful having legitimate use in industry. We believe, therefore, that the regulation should cite a justice and home affairs legal base, reflecting the illicit nature of the trade.
	I know that the issue of Europe can excite Members across the House, but I stress that the position I am setting out is influenced not by whether one is crudely pro-EU or anti-EU, but by an objective assessment of EU law as it stands.

Jim Shannon: What concerns Members across the House, apart from the question of Europe, are the deaths of young people, which have risen from 29 to 52 in England and Wales over the past year. What the Minister is taking about is exactly what we want to see: stronger action from Europe to support what the Government are doing.

Norman Baker: We certainly want stronger action from Europe on, for example, co-operation between member states on information, but my view is that this serious problem is best dealt with at member state level, rather than by waiting for the EU. The system we have in place at the moment allows us to take action more quickly than the proposals the EU is putting forward would allow us to do, so the hon. Gentleman’s point is met by the present system in the UK—I am not saying that it is perfect, because we want to improve it—rather than the EU system, which is defective in comparison.

John Redwood: What is the prognosis, assuming that the House agrees with the Minister’s sensible view tonight, for getting the EU to drop this interference and let us do what we want?

Norman Baker: It would be helpful if this House passed a reasoned opinion, and there was certainly support in the other place in a debate earlier this evening. I know that other member states have similar views, whether or not they are in favour of the Commission’s proposals, on the justification for this particular legal base. I am hopeful that good sense will emerge as a consequence.

Andrew Tyrie: Can the Minister say when in the past we have succeeded in winning an argument of this type on the basis of the subsidiarity case?

Norman Baker: I am not an expert on the history of EU legislation, fortunately, but this case seems to me to be somewhat blatant and rather clear-cut, so I am certainly hopeful that we will make progress on this occasion, not least because of the support from other member states.

Steve Brine: I thoroughly support what the Minister is saying. This is not only unwelcome interference in a member state’s affairs, but could be very dangerous. He knows of the case of a constituent of mine from Chandler’s Ford—I have raised it in questions recently—in which the Government were able to respond, although not as quickly as I would have liked. What is proposed here from an EU level is actually quite dangerous.

Norman Baker: So far there has not been great success with regard to the speed of activity from the European Union. The proposals it is putting forward, in my view, would be slower than the present UK proposals, so irrespective of the legal base, that is not a good message to send out to those who wish to deal with what are often quite dangerous substances.

William Cash: Would the Minister be kind enough to give way on a point of information, because I wish, through him, to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)? There have recently been a number of successful challenges in relation to reasoned opinions on subsidiarity, including on a European prosecutor’s office. We will continue in this House and in the European Scrutiny Committee to take the appropriate and necessary advice and get it right.

Norman Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Of course, his knowledge of European matters is second to none in this House—[Interruption.] I did not say whether or not I approved of it.
	The proposed regulation has features that might be appropriate if harmonisation of a legitimate internal market was genuinely required, but when applied to the control of these substances by member states, the proposal greatly exceeds any action required at EU level and thus does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. For those few psychoactive substances that have legitimate uses, which amount to fewer than 2% of the more than
	300 substances identified by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction since 2005, our framework is already flexible enough to place controls on those substances to restrict recreational use without hindering genuine use in industry.

John Woodcock: Does the Minister believe that the European Commission’s impact assessment is mistaken? It states that member states would be able to apply national measures before the introduction of any EU-level measures and go further than what is foreseen by EU measures. It suggests that the UK would not be fettered. He clearly disagrees. Why?

Norman Baker: I do not think that is correct. Certainly, with regard to those substances classified as severe, with the top rank of measures, we would not be able to countermand the EU description applied to the substance unless the European Commission agreed to do so on application from the member state, so I do not think that is correct.

John Mann: I know that the Minister has his finger on the pulse when it comes to the use of drugs in this country. What percentage of legal highs that come into this country are ordered via the internet from other EU states?

Norman Baker: I am not sure whether I heard the question correctly, but the acquisition from the internet of legal highs is, fortunately, a minority activity at the moment, but we need to keep an eye on it. The majority of legal highs are sourced elsewhere.

John Mann: How does the Minister know that?

Norman Baker: The Government and law enforcement agencies have investigative resources, so we monitor these things very closely, which I hope is what the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do.

Caroline Nokes: One of the real problems with so-called legal highs is that they are available in shops on our high streets, so young people believe that they will not do them any harm. What action will the Government’s decision enable us to take to crack down on their sale on the high street?

Norman Baker: Law enforcement agencies take action against the sale of illegal substances. As I have said, some 19% of so-called legal highs contain controlled substances. Other steps are being taken through other legislation to deal with these matters and I assure my hon. Friend and others that the Government is looking actively at what other steps we can take to deal with this increasing problem.
	Let me make some progress. On our reading of article 4 of the proposed regulation, member states would only be able to adopt their own measures—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock)—in relation to substances that are not the subject of EU restrictions. Where the EU has acted, member states would not be free to impose their own standards. Given that the new regulation provides for a tiered scheme of restrictions, it is entirely
	possible that the EU may decide that a measure merits a moderate restriction, whereas our own scientific evidence and domestic concerns suggest that it should require a severe restriction, with the ensuing categorisation under domestic drug control legislation. The reverse, of course, equally applies. This scenario further demonstrates our belief that the proposals as they stand are incompatible with subsidiarity, as member states must have the flexibility to impose the appropriate level of controls as circumstances within their borders merit.
	Given the experience since 2005, it is difficult to see how enhancing the EU’s prerogative in controlling these substances would meet the second condition of subsidiarity, namely that objectives can be better achieved at EU rather than member state level. Under the current risk assessment and control framework, only 13 risk assessments on such substances have been carried out by the EU since 2005, with nine substances subsequently coming under EU-wide control. Of these, the UK had already controlled eight, and we have since controlled the ninth as well. The control of just nine substances in eight years is woefully insufficient to keep pace with the fast-moving marketplace. Although the current proposals would involve an accelerated risk assessment and control process, that would still be a reactive model in which it would take time for sufficient evidence of harms to emerge to trigger a risk assessment.
	Furthermore, the vast majority of these substances seen in Europe in recent years have already been classed as illegal drugs in the UK. With many other member states also being well ahead of the EU-level response to this threat, we simply do not accept that the Commission’s proposals would add any material value at all to the domestic approaches already being taken.
	We also believe both the regulation and the directive to be Schengen-building measures, a view which is not to date accepted by the Commission. Although we will be arguing that these proposals build on areas of the Schengen agreement in which the UK participates—and thus is able to opt out of—that does not necessarily mean we would exercise that power. The proposals as they currently stand, and as they develop through negotiation, will be judged on their merits, with the primary considerations being the subsidiarity and proportionality of the measures.
	Having said all that, I readily acknowledge that we have benefited greatly from the EU-level monitoring and identification systems put in place for these substances, and support strongly a role for the EU in facilitating the sharing of information and best practice in responding to developments. Indeed, I suggest that an enhanced role for information exchange is where the true value of EU action lies. However, we do not believe that the current proposals for common standards in relation to controls on new psychoactive substances are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, as sanctions in this area are best determined by member states responding flexibly to national circumstances. It is for that reason that I commend this motion to the House.

Diana Johnson: I welcome the Minister to his post. The Opposition were particularly pleased about his appointment to the Home Office. I thank him for his explanation of the Government’s position on this proposal.
	The European Commission’s proposals are technical but important. We should be thankful for the work undertaken by members of the European Scrutiny Committee to assist our deliberations. As the Minister explained, the measures are an attempt to take an EU-wide approach to the problem of legal highs. No one in this House should underestimate the scale of the problem. The UN estimates that the UK has the largest legal highs market in the world. It is estimated that 670,000 young Britons aged 16 to 24 have taken legal highs.
	Many of the figures on the scale of the problem already come from the EU through the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. That agency found 73 new synthetic drugs in 2012, which is up from 49 in 2011. The rate of proliferation is increasing. At times this year, about two new substances have been arriving in the UK market every week. Hundreds have been catalogued in the marketplace. There are more than 500 internet shops that supply the substances to the UK market. There are also an unknown but increasing number of head shops on the high street.
	It is therefore clear that there is some truth in the Commission’s assessment that member states have not been able effectively to respond to the threat posed by legal highs and that collective action is needed. The Commission is perhaps being unfair on several other member states that have taken action. Countries such as Ireland have been more proactive in responding to the rapid proliferation of the new drugs. The UK Government have been singularly ineffective in tackling this problem. That is why the UK market is now the largest in Europe.

Norman Baker: I just want to put the record straight. The hon. Lady mentioned that there were 49 new drugs in 2011. Only 17 of those crossed the channel to the UK and 14 of them were already controlled by the UK Government. Of the 73 in 2012, only 18 have been seen in the UK and eight had already been controlled.

Diana Johnson: I will come on to the discrepancies between the Home Office figures and the figures of other bodies. The Home Office does not have access to the figures on all the new legal highs that are available on the internet and in head shops.
	I want to return to the EU proposal to introduce a cross-European response. The Commission proposes to strengthen the existing monitoring centre, the EMCDDA, to enable it to undertake assessments of new substances and determine how dangerous they are. That determination will inform a classification that is decided on by the Commission with some input from member states.
	The Commission wants to address two problems through the proposals. The first and, going by the Commission’s documents, possibly the foremost, is the impediment to the legitimate trade in new psychoactive substances caused by restrictions imposed by individual member states. Secondly, the Commission recognises the public health need. From the drafting of the proposals, it could be construed that the Commission is giving that secondary status.
	I agree with the evidence of the Minister for Immigration to the European Scrutiny Committee in which he said that it was not entirely clear what “mischief” the
	Commission was attempting to tackle. In the regulations, free trade appears to be afforded equal status to prevention of harm. The Opposition share the Government’s surprise that the regulation is justified under the legal auspices of protecting free trade, rather than article 5 concerns relating to justice and home affairs. That focus is surprising given that even the Commission recognises that only a small, unquantifiable percentage of new psychoactive substances have a legitimate use.
	The European Scrutiny Committee states that the
	“trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate purposes is difficult to quantify”.
	I agree with its conclusion:
	“Given that uncertainty, as well as the known risks associated with their recreational use, we do not consider that new psychoactive substances should necessarily be treated in the same way as other tradable commodities… Divergent national rules cited by the Commission as an obstacle to legitimate trade, in our view, often reflect differing cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs”.
	Although the Opposition have some reservations about the Commission’s motivations, we are willing to engage in addressing the health harms posed by legal highs. We also give the Commission some credit for recognising that harm.
	Reading the Commission’s proposal, however, it is not clear how it would determine harm. Article 7 lays out the procedure for risk assessment connected with the substance, and article 10 states the conditions for the determination of levels of health, social and safety risks, following the risk assessment. Article 9 deals with urgent public health requirements, while articles 11, 12 and 13 lay out three levels of control, depending on the level of risk identified. It is important to note for article 11 and substances deemed a low risk, that that would mean no restrictions at all.
	That does not give an entirely satisfactory account of how the EMCDDA would determine the level of harm associated with each drug. The articles I have mentioned lay out a process, but it is not entirely clear that the EMCDDA will have the evidence available to make classifications that correspond to the level of harm outlined. EMCDDA assessments would not extend to clinical trials, and it is therefore not clear how it would be in a position to rule out addictiveness, long-term psychological harm, or the effect of combining the drugs with alcohol.
	It is important to remember that most deaths associated with legal highs come about accidentally, and I am not convinced that the Commission’s proposals adequately explain how the EMCDDA would account for such dangers. Perhaps the Minister will set out the Government’s position on that point, and say what representations the UK Government have made to the Commission. It is also not clear how such proposals will impact on the UK’s capacity to determine our own classification system—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).

Stephen O'Brien: Is the answer to the hon. Lady’s question that we are seeking to pass this measure today to demonstrate our expertise and judgment on these various substances, both those that are emerging and those that are well known such as khat—I have seen the devastation that causes right across north, west and east Africa—which is finding its
	way to these shores? Precisely for those reasons we want to rely on our expertise and judgment and get a system in place in time, rather than relying on the lowest common denominator from Europe.

Diana Johnson: If the right hon. Gentleman was listening, I was making the case for why I am questioning whether the procedure in this proposal would actually work. I want the Minister to respond to the Government’s advice on the point about the effect that such a proposal would have on any determination this country could make about its own classification.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Lady rightly raises the question of us making our own determinations, which I hope she will agree should be evidence based. Has she seen the advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that khat should not be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and will the official Opposition follow that evidence-based line when it comes to a vote in the Statutory Instrument Committee?

Diana Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps look to his own coalition Government, who decided not to follow the advice of the ACMD. As a Member of the two ruling coalition parties, perhaps he should question his own Ministers on that point.

Julian Huppert: rose—

Diana Johnson: I am going to move on because I do not want to get sidetracked into a debate on khat as that is not the purpose of this debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could ask his Ministers about their position as they are part of the Government who are not using—[Interruption.] Well, I have made my position clear. He should look to his own Ministers. The Liberal Democrats cannot have it all ways—I know they try, but perhaps on this they should look to their Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office.
	It would be helpful if the Minister set out clearly his position on classification. EU co-operation on drugs is not new, but previously the agreement was that drugs, as recognised by the UN agreement on narcotics, needed to be controlled and the trafficking of drugs tackled. The proposals we are discussing go far further than that. Drugs that would be deemed low risk will not be restricted; those deemed a moderate risk will be prohibited from the consumer market; and the most dangerous drugs will be prohibited altogether, with a possible exception for medical use. I should make it clear that the Opposition do not want to cede powers on drug classification to the EU, and I press the Minister about the Government’s legal advice on how the adoption of the directive could affect the UK Government’s position. The Home Office explanatory memorandum states:
	“we do not consider that the measure complies with the principle of proportionality. In particular, the effect of Article 4 of the draft Regulation fetters the UK from adopting more stringent measures to control NPS. In our view, it is vital for the UK, guided as necessary by EU expertise in NPS but not bound by it, to have the final say when deciding whether to exceed any minimum standards mandated by the EU.”
	Although the Opposition concur generally with that, it would be helpful if the Minister explained exactly what the Government mean by “fetters”. Do the Government believe that article 4 would prevent them from placing strong prohibitions on a substance?
	When we turn to articles 3 and 4, we see that the Commission has placed a strong emphasis on free trade, as I have said. Article 3, on free movement, states:
	“New psychoactive substances and mixtures shall move freely in the Union for commercial and industrial use”.
	Article 4, on the prevention of barriers to free movement, states that, in so far as
	“the Union has not adopted measures to subject a new psychoactive substance to market restriction under this Regulation, Member States may adopt…regulations”.
	Is it the Government’s view that member states could impose restrictions only before the EU has classified a drug? Would the Commission classifying a drug as low risk, and therefore not restricting sale in any way, count as having adopted a measure, therefore precluding further action from member states? For its part, the Commission thinks not—it argues that in its impact assessment.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady makes a detailed and powerful argument. I am gathering that she supports generally what the Government are doing. Many Government Members would like to know that the Opposition will not vote against the motion tonight.

Diana Johnson: I have a few more pages of notes, and then all will be revealed. The hon. Gentleman will have picked up that the Opposition have a number of questions on whether the proposal would be helpful in dealing with the problem of legal highs.
	The impact assessment states:
	“Member States would be able to apply national measures before the introduction of any EU-level measure in…respect of the provisions of Directive 98/34/EC, and to go further than what is foreseen by EU measures in full respect of the provisions of Article 114”.
	Will the Minister respond to that explanation on that point?
	One point made strongly by the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place was that national states are more competent than the EU to make decisions because specific factors might influence the dangers of each drug in different national contexts. The Opposition agree with that assessment. One particular issue is what substances are mixed with—one psychoactive substance could form part of a compound street drug that is far more dangerous. That is a problem for the UK, which, as I have said, has Europe’s largest legal highs market. That draws attention to a failing of the Government’s response to legal highs—the failure to address the emergence of regional drugs, meaning drugs going under a generic street name, but often containing a variety of different substances that become popular in a certain region. Sadly, we have seen repeatedly over a number of years that batches of such drugs can contain a dangerous substance, often with lethal consequences.
	Because the Opposition believe that member states are best placed to determine the level of harm posed by a new psychoactive substance, we do not believe that the proposal from the EU Commission is either necessary or proportionate. Therefore, we agree with the reasoned opinion put by the European Scrutiny Committee and supported by the Government. However, even if the House and the other place were to reject the Commission’s proposals—the other place has, I believe, already rejected the proposals—it should not be taken as an excuse by
	this Eurosceptic Government to opt out of EU co-operation on investigating and assessing new psychoactive substances. The Opposition see a clear need for EU-wide co-operation on a laboratory to research new substances without giving it the power to classify substances.
	Currently, hundreds of new substances arrive on the UK market. The Government’s temporary banning orders have been used on only three occasions. I therefore dispute what the Minister has said about taking swift action. There are two reasons for this: a failure by Ministers to refer substances to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the capabilities of the advisory council. It has said that it can assess only two or three substances a year. It is clear that it will never be able to keep up with the number of new drugs on the market, so the UK Drug Policy Commission and others called for a joint EU-wide laboratory to provide advice and information to relevant authorities. We support that. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has long produced lists of new substances that have always been far ahead of the Home Office’s forensic early warning system. I have repeatedly asked Ministers why substances that are identified by the EMCDDA as being on sale in the UK are not automatically added to the forensic early warning system. This goes back to the Minister’s intervention on the numbers. The EMCDDA numbers are far higher than the Home Office numbers, and that needs to be looked at. Perhaps the Minister will finally be able to explain why there is such a disparity between the two lists.
	In conclusion, the Opposition are in agreement with both the European Scrutiny Committee and the Government that the EU Commission proposal is neither necessary nor desirable. We would like the Government to be more precise about the consequences of adopting the directive on the UK’s current system of drug regulation. We do not want the Government to use tonight’s debate as an excuse to avoid greater EU co-operation to assess the dangers posed by legal highs, particularly to our young people.

William Cash: We have had an interesting exchange of views, resulting in the Government and the Opposition agreeing with the European Scrutiny Committee’s assessment that there is a breach of the principle of subsidiarity in these matters. There are two issues: the draft regulation and the draft directive, both of which have already been described, so there is no need for me to go into them in detail.
	The draft regulation would fetter the flexibility that member states currently enjoy to determine the level of risk associated with a new psychoactive substance, and to implement appropriate national control measures. The draft directive, on the other hand, would require member states to introduce criminal sanctions for a new psychoactive substance deemed by the Commission to present a severe health, social and safety risk.
	The draft reasoned opinion concludes that the proposed legislation breaches the principle of subsidiarity simply because it would fetter member states’ action to an unacceptable degree. It highlighted the following concerns: the absence of reliable market information on the volume
	of trade in new psychoactive substances for legitimate rather than recreational use; different cultural and societal attitudes towards the regulation of drugs and new psychoactive substances and the need to accommodate different regulatory approaches at national level; the limited scope for unilateral action by a member state when faced with evidence of social or health harms which exceed the level of risk identified by the Commission when implementing market restrictions; and insufficient evidence of disruption to legitimate trade, or displacement of the harmful effects of the new psychoactive substances, to warrant market intervention on the scale envisaged in the proposed measures or the imposition of additional constraints on members states’ freedom of action.
	We have had a number of successes in the European Scrutiny Committee’s proposals for reasoned opinions: we debated the proposal for a European prosecutor’s office and last week it was withdrawn by the Commission, and the Monti II provision in relation to small and medium-sized businesses. We are making some progress. The reality, however, is that we still have to get a substantial number of member states to agree to our proposals on the reasoned opinion. We have a decent track record and will continue to argue the case on the basis of analysis, logic and common sense. Having said that, I do not think there is anything I need to do to repeat the remarks that have already been made, because the Government, the Opposition and the ESC all agree.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: From experience, does my hon. Friend agree that it is usually the most dangerous state of affairs when there is a consensus between my hon. Friend, Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition?

William Cash: I would certainly agree that it is extremely dangerous when there is collusion between the two Front-Bench teams, but when the European Scrutiny Committee comes into the equation, I think it is a virtuous circle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

Nigel Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the Government, the Opposition and the European Scrutiny Committee agree, there should be no question but that this proposal will go absolutely nowhere in terms of being implemented at any time in this country, and that we can be absolutely assured of that?

William Cash: We can be sure that our analysis will bear scrutiny and that the European Commission is getting used to the idea that when the UK Parliament is agreed about something, we are not going to give in. I think I will conclude my remarks on that rather important point.

John Mann: It must be rather galling for the most European of all parliamentarians, the Minister, having to be dissing the EU and its great works in one of his first outings. I was surprised, however, that he did not take more credit for the work that he, his predecessor, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), and his Department have done in encouraging this EU proposal. Of course, it was a Liberal Democrat who predecessed him—

Jesse Norman: I am entirely unhappy about the use of the word “dissing”, but I think “predecessed” demands further investigation. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify both those terms.

John Mann: It is a late hour and I have had no substances of any height during the day, but I have been building up my adrenalin, looking forward to this debate.
	I have been monitoring what the Home Office has been doing in this field. Whenever I speak to people from other countries, they keep telling me how the British Government—this coalition Government—are out there seeking their views and trying to learn from them. Portugal is one of the leaders of the move towards drug legalisation across the world, but the Czech Republic is following—that makes two EU states—and the European monitoring body on drugs is based in Lisbon.

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Mann: I would like to make my point first, so that the hon. Gentleman can understand it in its fullness.
	It is this Government who have been going and listening to the legalisers. I suspect that the European Commission is making an attempt over time to pull together these strands, backed by several senior police officers in this country, so that they can evaporate the problem of drugs and say that crime will reduce, because if we legalise lots of things and do not criminalise others, we will not need to spend as much money on policing, because crime will be falling all the time. What is happening with this Government—it is why the Minister has encouraged this proposal from the EU and now wishes to demolish it—is an attempt to block legal highs being made into illegal highs so that crime does not go up, because they are not providing the police in areas like mine that are disproportionately impacted by the current legal highs.
	I carried out my own public inquiry in Worksop town hall this January into the question of legal highs, asking the young people, the police, the health service and others what was going on. It was interesting to find out that it was not only young people who were taking these substances. It was also middle-aged people, although not perhaps elderly people. It was the people who participate in what the Government call the night-time economy and what I would call pubs with late licences. People are tanking up at home on cheap alcohol then going out to the pubs and nightclubs and taking these substances. The owners of the pubs and clubs complained to my inquiry that their biggest problem was that people were taking cheap pills and other highs instead of buying alcohol.
	By the way, allowing pubs to have late licences was the worst error of the last Labour Government. My biggest error in this place was not to speak out and try to alter that policy as it was going through because applying a city solution to areas like mine was totally inappropriate. One pub in my area is open till 5 in the morning, but nobody is drinking beer or spirits; they are allegedly—according to all the information I have—taking all sorts of substances that the Government will not deem illegal because they do not want the police to arrest people, though the police are not there anyway, because the Government have cut their numbers; and
	there are not even any police cells left in my area to put people in, and the police community support officers are about to take over neighbourhood policing. But nobody is being arrested for using legal highs in the pubs, and of course they are not because the highs are legal. This is part of Home Office policy.

Jesse Norman: I continue to be dazzled by the hon. Gentleman’s linguistic dexterity, which is reaching almost Prescottian heights, but will he tell us whether this great experiment in constructing a parliamentary speech out of a single sentence has the possibility of reaching a full stop?

John Mann: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman was listening.
	For two days, I got together young people, the police and the health service in my area, along with my expert panel which 10 years ago looked at the problem of heroin and this time looked at legal highs, among other problems. We analysed more than 400 submissions to find out exactly what was happening. We went out and asked the users of the illegal drugs what was happening with the legal highs. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would like to be informed about this, because his close coalition ally the Minister, and the Minister’s predecessor, have not got a clue what is going on with legal highs in this country. Some of the chief constables are increasingly saying, “Let’s legalise drugs; let’s not go any further with legal highs, so that we can get crime down.”
	The European Union is heading in exactly the same direction. That is why the Czech Republic has just backed the same approach as Portugal has taken. The European monitoring body’s research is nonsense, but it is quoted by the Minister and others in the Government all the time as the factual basis for what is happening around Europe. But the statistics on this—as on so many other things—that are compiled around Europe simply do not compare with what is going on here. They do not compare at all.
	In this country, we have a growing problem with legal highs. The problem is that people are taking cheap pills instead of spending money on alcohol, and the real problem with that is that they do not know what the pills are. People are taking things that give them a stimulus when they go out, but the compounds could contain anything, and on rare occasions there are tragic consequences. The bigger problem is that this is building up an atmosphere of semi-legality. People are taking things that ought to be illegal because they are dangerous, and they have no idea what they contain. They take them presuming and hoping that they are fine, and the Government are not prepared to put a system in place to deal with—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am struggling to understand how the hon. Gentleman is going to relate all this to subsidiarity. [Interruption.] Thank you; I do not need prompting. We are not having a general debate here. He has referred to Europe, and I hope that he is going to refer to the question of subsidiarity mentioned in the reasoned opinion.

John Mann: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am constructing an argument to demonstrate precisely how the European Union has got
	itself into this absurd situation of what might be called a caterpillar race between the European Commission and the British Government over who can be the slowest to deal with the problem of legal highs. Frankly, my constituents’ problem is that this Government are doing nothing—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Mann: I dare not digress.
	Like the Government, the European Union is doing nothing other than create an excuse for allowing the growth of legal highs without criminal sanctions. Some European Union countries think exactly the same way as this Government think. They are saying, “The more we create illegal drugs, the more criminality there will be; the less we spend on police, the more that criminality will grow, and the public will not like that.” That is the problem that the Minister should be addressing. I put it to him that he should go back to look at the origins of this proposal and withdraw the Government’s policy of going around these legalising countries to see what we can learn from them. Instead, he should be looking at the problems in areas like mine.

Julian Huppert: I tried to intervene earlier on this point. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about countries like Portugal as though they are legalising drugs. Does he not realise that Portugal has not legalised drugs and has no plans to legalise them? What it has done is to decriminalise them—a huge difference, which the hon. Gentleman should try to understand.

John Mann: I am familiar with the system in Portugal, having met the Portuguese and seen the myths created by their policy. Yes, the nuances of language are important for the law, but I am talking about the objective of allowing police cuts in areas like mine, which are the areas with the biggest problem with legal highs. This is part of a deliberate Government strategy. I put it to the Minister that as well as taking this back to the European Union, he should tell it that it has no remit in this area, no expertise to give and no valid data. He should stop relying on EU statistics and the EU agenda in setting Government policy. He should listen to the good people of Bassetlaw who say, “We don’t want legal highs in our clubs, pubs and streets; we want systems to make them illegal, and then we want the police in place to prosecute on the basis of them.”

Stephen O'Brien: Has the hon. Gentleman not dissed himself by his previous argument? He suggests that we need to go much faster to get the impact that he seeks in order to respond to his Bassetlaw constituents who have given him all this evidence, but this is the only method by which we can do it at any pace that is going to meet the need.

John Mann: The right hon. Gentleman is half right. If we cede it to the European Union, its caterpillar will go even more slowly in reaching the lettuce than our caterpillar. My concern is that our caterpillar is spending so much time in the European Union debating these matters that the lettuce always avoids him.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his brilliant speech, but I have a worry that he is confusing caterpillars with snails. It is snails that are notorious for their slowness, not caterpillars.

John Mann: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think it is time that we left the subject of caterpillars and lettuces and got to the matter in hand.

John Mann: I implore the Minister to reject this European Union attempt further to weaken our approach and to resist what his predecessor did, which was to go around these EU countries looking for ways to weaken our drug laws—precisely what this Government are sneakily doing in order to justify cuts in policing and the closing of police cells in areas like Bassetlaw.

Julian Huppert: I shall try to be relatively brief and to resist the temptation to discuss the speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I think that it was the first speech that I have heard in which someone has objected to the concept of talking to other people to identify good practice, which is surely something that most of us would want to do.
	It is clear that a huge problem is posed by new psychoactive substances. As that has been reiterated so many times, I shall not go into it in detail now, but I will say that the rise in the number of such substances is partly our fault, because our prohibition-led policy has made it possible to be sentenced to years in jail for possessing one tablet of known harm, but to receive no penalty for possessing something else of unknown harm, which could be far more serious.
	We know that some of the new substances are more harmful than substances that we have already controlled. Our use of the term “legal highs” suggests to the public that it is all right to take such substances, because it implies that they are safer than others. If ecstasy is a class A drug and another substance is legal, that suggests that we have made an assessment of the risk, which is deeply misleading. It flies in the face of any evidence-based policy, but it also flies in the face of what we all want to do, which is to reduce the harms from drug use. All substances of this kind, whether legal or illegal, have harms, and we must try to reduce those harms.
	I agree with the Minister that the European proposal is not the right one to adopt, but what is the correct way in which to deal with all these substances? On the general subject, I follow the Portuguese line. I think that decriminalisation has worked very well there. Only those on the far right in politics opposed it originally, and now it is supported by people throughout the political spectrum and by the police themselves. The Home Affairs Committee conducted a detailed study of all the issues, and that was our very clear finding.
	What is the solution? What is not the solution is simply to ban everything that is psychoactive. I suspect that that is what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is proposing, and it is certainly what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) proposed in a new clause to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which would have included making the
	sale of caffeine, including coffee, illegal. I do not think that that was the intention of the new clause, but it illustrates the problems that arise when we try to ban things. Coffee is a psychoactive substance. I will not ask how many Members who are present have consumed some of that psychoactive substance today, but quite a number will have done so. That illustrates the danger of being extremist and banning everything.
	What we should do is adopt an alternative to the European proposal, and emulate, for example, what has been done in New Zealand. When the New Zealand Government asked the New Zealand Law Commission to look at their drug laws—the Select Committee report goes into this in much more detail—the commission proposed the establishment of an independent regulatory authority to test substances, so that manufacturers and importers would have to demonstrate their safety. I am pleased to see that other members of the Select Committee are present. We proposed that urgent action should be taken, based on existing trading standards and consumer protection legislation, to deal with the sale of untested substances. The onus should be on the person selling a substance to check that it is safe. That is the right way to tackle the huge number of new psychoactive substances.

Diana Johnson: Perhaps I could correct the record. The new clause to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have dealt with exactly the problem that he has raised by building on the work that had already been done in relation to young people who were sniffing glue. I believe that it was a Conservative Government who had previously legislated to put the onus on shopkeepers who sold substances that could be used for that purpose, and the new clause was intended to put the onus on the seller in the same way. I take exception to the way in which he has described its aims.

Julian Huppert: New clause 2 stated:
	“It is an offence for a person to supply, or offer to supply, a psychoactive substance, including but not restricted to…a powder…a pill…a liquid; or…a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis which he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be so acting, that the substance is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication.”
	That would make it illegal to sell coffee. It is perfectly possible to be intoxicated by caffeine, which is an addictive substance. The hon. Lady is right to say that the new clause deals only with the supply of substances, but, although some of us may have concerns about Starbucks paying taxes or otherwise, I think that making the company illegal would be going too far.
	Roughly one in five of the notified new psychoactive substances are used for legitimate purposes in industry or research, or as active substances in medicines. We must be extremely careful about how we proceed, because a global ban would give rise to all sorts of problems.
	We have touched on the Home Secretary’s decision to ban khat. She has tabled a statutory instrument to do so. That was her decision; it was not a jointly signed off one, and I was very disappointed by it.
	I was also very disappointed and surprised that the shadow Minister had no idea what her own policy was. [Interruption.] If she would like to say what it is, I will be happy to take an intervention. Apparently, she does not wish to do so.
	The Government have twice asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs what to do about khat. This is a classic example of a legal high that exists and would be covered by this provision, and where we have to work out what to do. The ACMD said that
	“the evidence of harms associated with the use of khat is insufficient to justify control and it would be inappropriate and disproportionate to classify khat under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.”
	It also said that
	“the evidence shows that khat has no direct causal links to adverse medical effects”.
	It went on to say there is no robust evidence of a causal link between khat consumption and any of the social harms indicated, and no evidence of it being connected with organised criminal behaviour.

Peter Bone: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what his definition of “brief” is?

Julian Huppert: I suspect I will be one of the briefest speakers in this debate, not counting interventions. That will have to do as a working definition, and I have almost concluded.
	Not only is it clear from the evidence that banning khat will be harmful and will not solve the problem, but it would also cost this country £12.8 million a year in the loss of the VAT that is currently being paid on the legal import of khat, with a total cost of £150 million, according to the Government’s own estimates. This is an example of a legal high that the Home Secretary is proposing to ban, and I intend to vote against that when we have the opportunity to do so, and it would be fantastic if the Labour party decided to join us. That example shows why this is such a hard issue.
	I agree with the Minister that we should make it clear to the EU that we should make our own decisions, but it is also important that those decisions are the right ones.

Norman Baker: I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for her welcoming me to the Front Bench on this matter, and I agree that the key issue is that the EU basis, suggesting there is an impediment to legitimate trade, is completely wrong. That is why the EU proposals are unacceptable.
	The early-warning system does work. In fact, I referred AMT to it only a week or so ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) prompted me to do so. The early-warning system is also activated in terms of Exodus Damnation, so that we can see what can be done about that. What we have done successfully in this country is ban families of substances, and even substances that do not exist, in anticipation of what might come next.

Julian Brazier: I strongly support the Minister’s stance against Europe on this issue and thank him for his detailed letter on the point that he has just made. As two of my constituents have died from legal highs, however, may I urge him to be open to testimony from the police that the generic ban to which he refers is not yet covering everything that it needs to cover?

Norman Baker: It is certainly true that new substances appear all the time, and how we deal with that presents a real challenge. I am looking at that, and it is a very high priority for the Home Office.
	I can assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that the Government recognises the need for EU-wide co-operation. We strongly support that and recognise its value in tackling this menace. She need have no worries on that front.
	The hon. Lady talked about the numbers and asked for clarification about what the EU had said, as opposed to what the UK had said. Only 74 out of 270 substances identified by the EMCDDA have been found in this country—only 27%. That may account for the different figures. She asked whether it can make an adequate assessment. The answer in my view is no, which I think is her answer as well. That is one of the points that we will make in our discussions with the EU. Negotiations are at an early stage, but we will raise the points made both by the Committee and in the House tonight.
	I can assure the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that it is not galling for me to “diss” the EU, as he put it. I have always believed in subsidiarity. I believe that decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level. This is an appropriate decision for the member states to take, not the EU. It is as simple as that.
	We have a very good way of approaching these matters that works. It is not true to say that we are not seeking to ban substances to reduce police activity. We have banned 200 such substances in recent times, compared with just the nine banned by the EU in eight years. So we have been very active in banning substances in this country. The hon. Gentleman talks about cuts in the police, but he might reflect on the fact that crime is down by 10% under this Government since 2010. So that was also a nonsensical point to make in justifying his case. I agree with him, however, that people sometimes take legal highs instead of alcohol. That is a matter that we are dealing with, which is why we have banned 200 substances, or thereabouts, in recent times. Finally, I welcome his contribution about psychoactive substances, caterpillars, snails and lettuces. With that, I ask the House to support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House considers that the draft Regulation and draft Directive on the regulation of new psychoactive substances (European Union Documents No. 13857/13 and Addenda 1 and 2 and 13865/13 and Addenda 1 and 2) do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter Eight of the Nineteenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xviii); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

Business without Debate

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Oil Tax

That the draft Additionally-developed Oil Fields Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 9 October, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

House of Commons Members’ Fund

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order,22 October, and Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1 October 2013 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948:
	(1) the whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) the whole of the Treasury contribution paid to the Fund.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

Environmental Audit

Ordered,
	That Paul Uppal be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

International Development

Ordered,
	That Peter Luff be a member of the International Development Committee.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Public Administration

Ordered,
	That Mr Steve Reed be discharged from the Public Administration Committee and Sheila Gilmore be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITIONS

Speed Limit in Elterwater, Cumbria

Tim Farron: I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents of Elterwater, in Cumbria, in the Lake district. The petitioners are particularly concerned about the speeding through the Lake district village of Elterwater.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of a resident of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioner believes that the current speed limit of 60mph in Elterwater, Cumbria, is hazardous for local residents.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change the speed limit in the area to 20mph, and introduce traffic calming measures.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001287]

Housing Development off Hillside Close (Bozeat, Northamptonshire)

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to present a petition from the residents of Bozeat in my constituency, where an outrageous planning application has been put in which would destroy the nature of the village. The lead petitioners are Graeme Sutherland, Denise Moth, Leo Knight and Lucy Gardiner.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
	Sheweth,
	That the proposed housing development, application number WP/2013/0332 on the land off Hillside Close, Bozeat, is unacceptable because the scale and location of the development is out of character with the village and would extend the village boundary
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to work together to ensure that this development does not occur.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P001289]

FEED-IN TARIFFS (LOTTERY FUNDING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

Jesse Norman: Let me start by thanking Mr Speaker for kindly granting this debate on lottery-funded projects and feed-in tariffs. I had hoped to speak in a Westminster Hall debate on the topic in October called by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), but the then Minister was the beneficiary—or perhaps the victim—of a reshuffle and the debate was cancelled. This Adjournment debate is a welcome opportunity to address these matters properly.
	Some debates in the House are on topics of purely general importance, but this one specifically concerns two villages in a remote part of my county of Herefordshire. The issue, however, is of huge importance to those villages and their residents. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that it gravely affects their well-being as well as that of a local school. It also raises a general issue relevant to other village communities as well as wider questions of fairness and responsibility that directly concern the Government. For all those reasons, I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate and ask the Government to give it their close attention.
	Clifford and Moccas are isolated villages on the western and northern edges of my constituency. Both are blessed with village halls that are well-used and well-supported by local people. In early 2011, both communities were awarded grants from the Big Lottery Fund, which distributes moneys on behalf of the national lottery, to install solar photovoltaic panels on their village halls. The motivation in each case, which was clearly stated throughout the application process, was to claim feed-in tariff payments to help meet the running costs of the halls.
	The schemes were installed in late 2011 and early 2012. Clifford received a £10,000 grant from the Big Lottery Fund and raised a further £15,000 from the local community. Moccas received a grant for £9,603, which covered the full value of the works. In spring 2013, however, two years after the original awards, both communities were told that their eligibility for feed-in tariffs was under threat as grants from the Big Lottery Fund had been reclassified as state aid. The communities were presented with two options: to pay back the funding received from the Big Lottery Fund and continue to claim feed-in tariffs; or to keep the Big Lottery Fund money and give up any entitlement to feed-in tariffs.
	On 6 June 2013, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said that he hoped that his Department would look into the matter. On 6 September 2013, however, a written question from me received a reply from the Department stating that it was not investigating the matter and that it was for Ofgem, which administers the scheme, and its licensed suppliers to determine eligibility for feed-in tariffs based on the legislation.
	On 3 October I received a letter from Ofgem that disavowed responsibility, stating that it did not set the policy underpinning the feed-in tariffs scheme, which was the responsibility of the Department of Energy and
	Climate Change. The letters also said that the Big Lottery Fund grants were classified as “grants from public funds”, as the national lottery and the apparatus through which it distributes funding were established by statute. As a result, Big Lottery Fund grants were subject to the rules on state aid and it was not possible to combine a grant with the receipt of feed-in tariffs.
	The Big Lottery Fund has given the village hall committees the opportunity to convert the grant money received so far into an interest-free loan. That is to be welcomed but it does not address the underlying problem, which is that a change in the scheme administered by Ofgem is causing tangible hardship to the villages. It is even having a negative effect on a lovely local school. Clifford primary school is located on the same site as the village hall and was a partner in its solar panel project. Indeed, the project is a key part of its eco-schools accreditation. The head teacher tells me that the school might have to be run at a deficit purely as a result of this uncovenanted and unilateral change.
	That turn of events was entirely unnecessary. Both hall committees and Clifford primary school entered the agreements in good faith and, to put the matter in the kindest light, appear to have been let down by poor communication somewhere along the line. The question goes deeper, however, and raises issues of fairness and accountability and of management within Government. So far, both the Department and Ofgem have disavowed any responsibility for the mishap. Each has placed responsibility with the other. My question is simple: who is responsible?
	How is it possible that Moccas and Clifford hall committees were notified only in spring 2013 of the change in legislation that happened two years earlier? How can it be right for the Government to have allowed national lottery funding to be classified as state aid when its moneys derive from private gambling on the lottery? The question becomes still more pertinent when one considers that the statutory body is the National Lottery Commission, which does not give out any money at all. The lottery is, in effect, a trading name for Camelot, a private company. Clicking on “About us” on the national lottery website takes one directly to the Camelot website.
	One might ask how grants of money raised from private individuals by a private firm can be classified as state aid. Did Ofgem check whether the grants were subject to state aid rules before the scheme was launched? What legal advice was taken? If it was taken, it would have been adverse; was any thought given to contesting the matter?
	There are also more specific questions that I would respectfully ask the Department to address. Is it satisfied that Ofgem has correctly interpreted the policy directions that it was given? Will it conduct a detailed review of how the change in policy was communicated to interested parties? When exactly were Ofgem, the Big Lottery Fund, licensed suppliers and parish councils or other grant recipients notified? How were they notified? Was any effort made to ensure that they received and understood the notification? Was any attempt made to offer redress for the misleading way in which local committees have been treated? Simply and crucially, will the Department ensure that someone—a named individual—takes responsibility for what has happened?
	This issue has caused huge confusion, concern and cost to local people in my constituency. Neither Clifford nor Moccas would have entered into the contracts if they had known that the funding or the feed-in tariffs would subsequently be withdrawn, and if they are withdrawn, both will struggle to maintain the viability of their village hall. The financial well-being of a local school—an eco-school, no less—hangs in the balance. It is not the villages that have changed their minds; it is the Department that has done so.
	There are not many of these schemes across the UK. I ask the Government to consider forgiving the debts altogether. That will not mend the harm that has been caused, but it will at least redress the balance, and it would be in accord with natural justice.

Michael Fallon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for calling for this debate, and for persisting with it after an earlier attempt. This is a topic that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), would normally handle, but he is abroad tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I stand in for him.
	I regret the position that Moccas, Clifford and other community groups have found themselves in. The Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ofgem and the lottery have done their best to try to rectify the situation, but there is a limit to what can be done within policy and legal constraints. Let me explain the context, and set out the actions that we have taken and the measures that we have introduced to assist local communities that wish to develop renewable energy projects.
	The feed-in tariff scheme is intended to replace, not supplement, public grant schemes as the principal means of incentivising small-scale, low-carbon electricity generation. As such, the tariffs are calculated to subsidise the entire cost of eligible installations, and to provide investors with a reasonably attractive rate of return of between 4.5% and 8% a year. For those reasons, and to ensure compliance with European Union rules on state aid, it is generally not possible for a generator to benefit from both feed-in tariffs and a grant from a public body, except in exceptional circumstances, some of which concern environmental considerations, such as the provision of fish ladders. That position, together with the various minor exceptions, has been clearly stated on both the DECC and feed-in tariffs websites since May 2011.
	National lottery funding and grants issued by or on behalf of the national lottery are considered grants from public funds; I take my hon. Friend’s point about the lottery itself, but grants from it, including from the Awards for All programme and the community sustainable energy programme, are considered grants from public funds. As such, an installation cannot receive feed-in tariff support where national lottery funding has been accepted in support of purchasing and/or installing. I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that it is difficult to justify giving a double subsidy to individuals and organisations at any time, but particularly in the current fiscal climate, by allowing grants from public funds to be used in addition to the feed-in tariff subsidy.

Tessa Munt: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think it would be unreasonable for the hon. Lady to expect to intervene, as she has only just arrived.

Michael Fallon: As I was saying, the costs of the feed-in tariff scheme are ultimately paid for through the electricity bills of consumers who, as my hon. Friend knows, are already facing rising fuel bills and general cost of living increases. The feed-in tariff scheme has been a success since its launch in April 2010, with over 480,000 systems totalling 2.4GW in capacity having been installed to date. An increasing number of these installations are indeed community energy schemes.
	The Government recognise that some communities believed that it was possible to combine lottery Awards for All grants with feed-in tariffs when installing renewable energy systems on their premises, so we have been working with Ofgem and the lottery to try to find an acceptable solution for all sides. Recipients of lottery Awards for All grants who were also claiming feed-in tariffs were given the one-off option of repaying their grant to the lottery or converting it to a loan. The latter means that the income from feed-in tariffs could be used to pay back the loan over time. If the recipient did not take up one of the two options by 20 September, they faced being suspended from the feed-in tariff scheme and having their payments stopped. I understand that both Moccas and Clifford, along with a number of other community groups, have taken up the option to convert their lottery grant into a loan.
	My hon. Friend asked a series of other questions. If I may, I will respond to him in detail in writing. Let me conclude by outlining some of the other measures that the Government are taking to support community renewable energy. My hon. Friend and those in his constituency who have already gone down this path are fully aware that our transformation to a low-carbon economy requires a huge national shift in the way we generate, distribute and buy our energy. By investing in local energy projects, communities can generate a healthy and stable return to cover the costs of installing small-scale renewable or low-carbon technologies. Such an opportunity can help drive local growth, redevelopment and even jobs at the larger scale.
	Large low-carbon energy infrastructure, such as nuclear power stations and offshore wind, play a major role in our energy system. They are an important part of a diverse energy mix, but they are not a complete recipe. We also need a society-wide shift involving individuals, local communities and other organisations. I therefore know that, although my hon. Friend has been disappointed by the way in which the two applications have been handled, he will be delighted at the fact that the number of small-scale energy systems in homes, businesses and community facilities has leapt from a few thousand to nearly half a million since the feed-in tariff scheme was introduced in 2010.
	We want to continue to help communities to spot and unlock such opportunities in their local area in order to save and generate energy for the benefit of the community.
	Communities will want to network with each other and with their local authorities and local businesses. My Department's forthcoming community energy strategy is looking at how information and advice can be used to supplement national resources, such as PlanLoCaL, the low-carbon hub and our recently published energy guide. I would also like to highlight the recent launch of the co-operative community shares fund website. That offers groups preparing community share offers free information and advice.
	I would like to emphasise that local authorities have a pivotal role to play in community energy. They can share expertise, put people together, share facilities and, in some cases, partner community energy schemes. One of the benefits is the retention by local authorities of local business rates from renewables. There are also potential benefits for community groups in the green deal. Charities and community interest companies are able to receive financial support from the domestic customers' green deal cashback by registering on the cashback website.
	I understand that pre-planning costs are a key barrier to developing viable renewables schemes of the sort that my hon. Friend has outlined and where those costs have already been incurred. In late 2011, we launched the local energy action fund, which offered pre-planning grants, and hundreds of applications have come in.
	In December 2012, the Government put in place a one-year tariff guarantee for community energy and education providers pre-registering solar PV installations for the feed-in tariff scheme in future years. We also granted community groups and schools with solar PV projects an exemption from the energy efficiency requirement of obtaining an energy performance certificate of level D and above. We also think that larger community energy projects should be able to benefit from the simplicity and certainty offered by the feed-in tariff scheme. We are now considering increasing the maximum capacity that community projects can install from 5 MW to 10 MW, and we are seeking powers to do that in the Energy Bill, which is currently going through the other place.
	As I mentioned, we are preparing a community energy strategy. It will tackle all aspects of community energy, including efficiency and renewables. I hope that that will inspire community groups, local authorities and commercial developers to put forward further projects. The call for evidence closed at the start of August and more than 300 responses have now been analysed.
	I fully understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment that both Moccas and Clifford were not fully aware of the limitations of the feed-in tariff scheme and the classification of grants from the national lottery as public funding. The option that they are taking up to convert their lottery grant into a loan is a useful one, but I am very happy to look at the particular questions that my hon. Friend has raised during the course of this debate and to reply to him in more detail.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.